## Facts

- Linda Henderson Williams (wife) and Louis Edward Williams (husband) married ceremonially on April 17, 1982; both had prior marriages and children.
- On the late afternoon before the wedding, husband presented wife with a typed premarital agreement in a bank parking lot.
- Wife said she did not like the agreement but signed it after noting that wedding guests were expected the next day.
- The parties went into the bank, obtained a notary, and executed the agreement.
- The agreement identified each party’s separate property and provided that income from those separate properties would remain separate during the marriage; husband’s stated purpose was to protect his separate estate for his children.
- After separation, husband sought to enforce the agreement in the divorce; wife contended she signed under duress and without informed, voluntary consent.
- Following a bench trial, the court found the agreement valid, awarded certain assets to husband as separate property, and divided the community estate in a manner wife argued was grossly disproportionate.

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement was enforceable, including whether wife executed it knowingly, with informed consent, and without legal duress, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Whether the evidence sufficiently traced disputed assets to husband’s separate property to overcome the community-property presumption.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by making an allegedly grossly disproportionate division of the community estate rather than a “just and right” division.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the divorce judgment in full.
- The premarital agreement was upheld as valid and enforceable; the circumstances of signing on the eve of the wedding did not establish legal duress.
- The trial court’s separate-property awards to husband were supported by sufficient tracing evidence under the clear-and-convincing standard.
- The community-property division, though unequal, was within the trial court’s discretion and supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A premarital agreement is not invalid solely because it is presented shortly before the wedding or because social pressure (e.g., impending ceremony, invited guests) influenced the decision to sign; duress requires wrongful or unlawful compulsion.
- Voluntariness and informed consent may be supported by evidence of the signing spouse’s education, business experience, familiarity with contracts, and prior discussions about the agreement’s purpose and effect.
- Property possessed at divorce is presumed community; the spouse claiming separate property must trace the asset to a separate source by clear and convincing evidence.
- A divorce court must divide community property in a “just and right” manner, not necessarily equally; appellate review of the division is for abuse of discretion and is deferential when the record provides a reasonable basis for the trial court’s judgment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of a premarital agreement executed the day before marriage, accepted the trial court’s separate-property tracing, and affirmed an unequal but evidence-based community-property division as within the trial court’s broad discretion.


Williams v. Williams, 720 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986)