## Facts

- Claude Harvey Segrest, Jr. and Patsy Sue Segrest divorced on February 12, 1974.
- The divorce decree incorporated a contractual property-settlement agreement that divided Claude’s non-disability military retirement benefits as part of the community estate.
- On June 26, 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McCarty v. McCarty, holding federal law preempted state division of military retired pay as community property.
- After McCarty, Claude stopped making payments to Patsy required by the settlement agreement.
- Claude filed suit (October 16, 1981) seeking a declaration that the decree provision and incorporated agreement awarding Patsy an interest in his retirement pay were void and unenforceable.
- Patsy counterclaimed to enforce the incorporated settlement agreement.
- The case presented no disputed facts; the controversy turned on legal questions.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellate court may refuse to consider points of error on the ground that no statement of facts was filed when the appeal presents only questions of law.
2. Whether McCarty retroactively rendered void and unenforceable a final, pre-McCarty Texas divorce decree and incorporated property-settlement agreement dividing military retirement pay.
3. Whether a declaratory-judgment action may be used to collaterally attack a final divorce decree based solely on a later change in law.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the trial court and court of appeals.
- The court held the court of appeals erred by presuming the evidence supported the judgment and declining to address legal points despite the absence of a statement of facts.
- The court held McCarty did not retroactively invalidate the final 1974 decree or the incorporated settlement agreement dividing military retirement benefits.
- The court dismissed Claude’s declaratory-judgment causes of action.
- The court remanded Patsy’s counterclaim for enforcement for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A statement of facts is required on appeal only when necessary to resolve issues that depend on the evidentiary record; it is unnecessary when the appeal presents pure questions of law.
- A final divorce decree incorporating a property-settlement agreement is not rendered void by a subsequent change in controlling law.
- A declaratory-judgment action cannot be used as a collateral attack to set aside or nullify a final judgment after the time for direct attack has passed.
- McCarty’s federal-preemption holding does not retroactively invalidate pre-McCarty final Texas divorce judgments that divided non-disability military retired pay.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court enforced judgment finality in domestic-relations property divisions by rejecting a post-McCarty collateral attack on a pre-1981 divorce decree dividing military retirement pay, and it clarified that appellate review of purely legal issues does not require a statement of facts.


Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1983)