## Facts

- Betty Price sued Scottie Price for divorce and for a division of the parties’ community property.
- The case was tried to the court without a jury.
- The trial court granted the divorce and divided the community estate, which consisted primarily of household goods and furniture.
- As part of the division, the court also ordered Scottie to pay Betty $4,000 to achieve a fair distribution of the community property.
- Scottie appealed, contending the $4,000 award was, in substance, permanent alimony, which Texas public policy generally forbids after an absolute divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s order requiring the husband to pay the wife $4,000 in a lump sum was an improper award of permanent alimony, or a permissible method of dividing the community estate.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s divorce decree and property division.
- The court held the $4,000 payment was part of the community-property division rather than an award of permanent alimony.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in ordering the lump-sum payment as a way to reach a fair division of the parties’ community property.

## Legal Principles

- Texas courts generally lack authority to award permanent alimony following an absolute divorce.
- A trial court has statutory authority to make a “just and right” division of the parties’ community estate, and it has broad discretion in carrying out that task.
- A monetary award in a divorce decree is evaluated by its function: a lump-sum payment may be approved when it operates as an equalizing payment to accomplish a fair division of community property, rather than as continuing post-divorce support.
- On appeal, a community-property division is reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Because the $4,000 lump-sum obligation was tied to the trial court’s authority to divide the community estate in a just-and-right manner, the appellate court treated it as a property-division device rather than forbidden permanent alimony and affirmed the judgment.


Price v. Price, 591 S.W.2d 601 (1979)