## Facts

- Glenn Vickery and Helen (also reported as Helena) Roberta Vickery were married and had a young daughter; Glenn was a practicing lawyer.
- Glenn was sued for legal malpractice by a former client and told Helen they needed a divorce to protect community property from a potential judgment.
- Helen did not want a divorce, but Glenn arranged for attorney Dianne Richards (a former law-school classmate) to file and prosecute the divorce in a way that purported to represent Helen’s interests, with little meaningful consultation or independent advice to Helen.
- While the divorce was pending, Glenn’s malpractice case settled; Glenn did not tell Helen about the settlement.
- Believing the malpractice case still threatened the community estate and that the divorce was a protective, temporary measure, Helen agreed to an extremely uneven property division in which she received about 7.5% of the community estate.
- After the divorce, Glenn hired a lawyer to evict Helen and their daughter from the primary residence and later married Helen’s best friend.
- Helen filed suit to set aside the prior divorce property division through a bill of review and asserted fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against Glenn and Richards.
- A jury found Glenn and Richards liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted relief, re-divided the community estate (awarding Helen about 58%), and awarded substantial damages, including mental-anguish damages and exemplary damages against Glenn, plus an award against Richards.
- The court of appeals affirmed. Glenn and Richards petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged conduct surrounding the divorce and property division amounted to extrinsic fraud supporting a bill of review setting aside the prior divorce property division.
2. Whether Glenn, as a spouse involved in managing and disclosing community assets, breached fiduciary duties and committed fraud in obtaining Helen’s agreement to the unequal division.
3. Whether Richards, as the attorney who appeared and acted in the divorce matter, breached fiduciary duties and committed fraud by proceeding without meaningful consultation and by facilitating Glenn’s plan.
4. Whether the affirmed awards of mental-anguish and exemplary damages were permissible in light of Texas Supreme Court decisions limiting (a) tort-style remedies for fraud affecting community property division and (b) mental-anguish damages in attorney-liability settings involving economic loss.

## Decision

- Petition for review denied; the Texas Supreme Court did not issue a merits opinion.
- Justice Hecht filed a dissent from the denial of review, stating he would have granted review and reversed based on intervening precedent addressing punitive damages for spousal fraud in property division and mental-anguish damages for attorney wrongdoing tied to economic loss.
- Because review was denied, the court of appeals’ judgment remained in effect, including the bill-of-review relief, the re-division of the community estate, and the damages awarded against Glenn and Richards.

## Legal Principles

- A bill of review is an equitable remedy that can set aside a final judgment, including a divorce property division, when a party proves grounds such as extrinsic fraud that prevented a fair opportunity to present the case.
- Spouses may owe fiduciary-like duties of fair dealing in the management and disclosure of community property; concealment and deceptive inducement in a property settlement can support findings of fraud and breach of duty.
- An attorney who undertakes representation owes fiduciary duties to the client; conduct such as appearing and filing pleadings without meaningful client consultation and while serving another person’s interests can support liability for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
- In Texas, denial of a petition for review leaves the lower-court judgment in place but does not constitute a Texas Supreme Court merits holding; a published dissent may identify conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent without changing the result.

## Conclusion

In *Vickery v. Vickery*, the Supreme Court of Texas denied review of a court of appeals decision affirming bill-of-review relief and significant fraud and fiduciary-duty findings arising from a divorce allegedly orchestrated to shield assets and coupled with nondisclosure of a malpractice settlement; Justice Hecht dissented from the denial, arguing that recent Texas Supreme Court precedent called the mental-anguish and exemplary-damages awards into question, but the denial of review left the lower-court judgment intact.


Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (1999)