## Facts

- Wanda Faye Murff and John Samuel Murff were married for over twenty years; both worked, but the husband earned significantly more.
- The wife sought divorce on insupportability and, alternatively, adultery and cruel treatment.
- After a nonjury trial, the trial court granted the divorce and found the wife proved all pleaded grounds.
- In dividing the community estate, the trial court expressly considered the husband’s fault in the breakup and the parties’ unequal earning capacities.
- The trial court awarded the wife community property valued at $78,901 plus $8,500 in attorney’s fees, and awarded the husband community property valued at $73,600 plus $30,000 characterized as his separate property.
- The trial court made an alternative finding that if the wife’s retirement/annuity were valued at $47,090.55 (rather than $8,000), the wife’s awarded value would correspondingly increase.
- The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in the property division.
- The wife sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may consider a spouse’s fault in the breakup of the marriage when making a “just and right” division of community property.
2. Whether a trial court may consider disparity in the spouses’ earning power or earning capacity when dividing community property.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the overall property division, including treatment of attorney’s fees, valuation of retirement benefits, and characterization of separate property.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of civil appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the parties’ estate.
- The Court held marital fault may be considered in a “just and right” community-property division.
- The Court held disparity in earning power or earning capacity may be considered in making a “just and right” division.
- The Court upheld inclusion of attorney’s fees within the overall division and declined to disturb the trial court’s valuation and allocation choices absent clear abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas trial court must divide the community estate in a manner it deems “just and right,” and the division need not be equal.
- Appellate review of a property division is highly deferential; reversal is proper only for a clear abuse of discretion, not because an appellate court would weigh the factors differently.
- Marital fault in the breakup of the marriage is a permissible factor in determining a “just and right” division.
- Disparity in earning power, income, or earning capacity is a permissible factor in determining a “just and right” division.
- An award of attorney’s fees to a spouse may be treated as part of the overall division of the marital estate.
- A property division will be upheld if, considering the evidence and permissible factors, it falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed a divorce property division after holding that trial courts may consider both marital fault and disparities in earning capacity, and that appellate courts may not overturn a “just and right” division absent a clear abuse of discretion.


Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981)