## Facts

- Almatine Patt (wife) and Felton Patt (husband) were married for more than 30 years.
- Almatine filed for divorce on irreconcilable differences without regard to either party’s fault, and the trial court granted the divorce.
- The parties owned no separate property.
- The community estate was modest and consisted of:
  - The marital home, valued at about $40,000, subject to an $8,000 mortgage and ongoing taxes;
  - Household furniture; and
  - An older automobile.
- Almatine lived in the home with three of the couple’s eleven children.
- Two of the children living in the home were employed and paid the mortgage and taxes.
- Almatine did not work and had no marketable skills.
- Felton was disabled, unemployed, and had been living with his sister for about two years; he paid her monthly using a disability check.
- The divorce decree awarded each spouse an undivided one-half ownership interest in the community property, but also awarded Almatine:
  - Exclusive use of the automobile; and
  - Exclusive use and possession of the home for the rest of her life, conditioned on her timely payment of the mortgage and taxes.
- Felton appealed, arguing that the award effectively left him with only a remainder interest in the home and was therefore unfair.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding the wife exclusive use and possession of the community homestead (and use of the car) for life, even though the parties each received a one-half ownership interest?
2. In the absence of filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, could the appellate court uphold the property division if it was supportable on any theory shown by the record?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the portion of the divorce decree dividing the community property.
- Because no findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, the appellate court reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and would affirm if the decree could be supported on any legal theory consistent with the record.
- Applying the “just and right” standard and the trial court’s broad discretion in dividing community property, the court held Felton did not show the division was so disproportionate or unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas trial court has broad discretion to divide community property in a divorce in a manner that is “just and right”; the division need not be equal.
- An appellate court will reverse a property division only for a clear abuse of discretion.
- When findings of fact and conclusions of law are not properly obtained and filed, the appellate court presumes the trial court made all necessary findings to support the judgment and must affirm if the judgment can be upheld on any theory supported by the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee.
- A decree may award one spouse exclusive use and possession of a community homestead as part of a “just and right” division, while still leaving both parties with an ownership interest.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals upheld the divorce property division awarding both spouses a one-half ownership interest in the marital home, while granting the wife exclusive use of the home and car for the rest of her life (subject to her payment obligations), because the trial court acted within its discretion and, without filed findings, the record permitted presumptions supporting the judgment.


Patt v. Patt, 689 S.W.2d 505 (1985)