## Facts

- John H. Wilson and Shirley L. Wilson married in March 1968.
- The couple separated in 1990 but did not divorce at that time.
- Shirley filed for divorce in October 1998.
- After a bench trial, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce on February 18, 2000.
- The decree divided the community estate and awarded Shirley about one-half of the community property.
- The property division included Shirley receiving an interest in retirement and other financial accounts connected to John’s employment.
- The trial court valued the retirement accounts and other community assets using values near February 2000 (the time of divorce), not the 1990 separation date.
- Using the divorce-date valuation increased the amount treated as community property because the retirement accounts had appreciated after separation.
- The decree also addressed the marital residence, including ordering John to pay Shirley $10,000 for her interest.
- The trial court awarded Shirley $7,129 in attorney’s fees.
- The division of retirement benefits was implemented through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs).
- John appealed, challenging the valuation date and fairness of the property division, the authority to award attorney’s fees in a divorce without minor children, and arguing that the QDROs affected the appeal.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by valuing community assets—especially retirement accounts—at the time of divorce rather than at the parties’ 1990 separation?
2. Did the trial court err by awarding Shirley attorney’s fees in a divorce that did not involve minor children, by treating fees as part of a just and right division of the community estate?
3. Did the entry of QDROs implementing the retirement division bar or moot John’s appeal of the divorce decree’s property division?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s divorce decree.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by using a valuation date near the time of divorce rather than the separation date, even though the retirement accounts increased in value during the separation.
- The court upheld the attorney’s fee award as a permissible part of the overall just and right division of the community estate, even without a separate fee-shifting statute tied to minor children.
- The court concluded that QDROs implementing the decree did not prevent appellate review of the underlying property division.

## Legal Principles

- Texas trial courts have broad discretion to divide the community estate in a manner that is “just and right,” and appellate courts reverse only for a clear abuse of that discretion.
- The community estate generally continues until the marriage is dissolved by divorce; separation alone does not end the community or require a separation-date valuation.
- A trial court may select a reasonable valuation date for community assets, including retirement accounts, and may consider divorce-date values and related appreciation when making a just and right division.
- Property possessed by either spouse during marriage or at divorce is presumed community property; a spouse claiming separate property must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Attorney’s fees in a divorce may be awarded as part of the property division to achieve a just and right result; the court need not rely on a child-related fee statute when fees are allocated through the division of the marital estate.
- QDROs are tools used to carry out a divorce decree’s division of retirement benefits and do not, by themselves, eliminate the right to appeal the decree’s property division.

## Conclusion

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a divorce decree that valued retirement and other community assets near the date of divorce rather than the parties’ earlier separation, upheld an attorney’s fee award as part of a just and right division of the community estate in a case without minor children, and held that QDROs implementing the retirement division did not bar appellate review of the decree.


Wilson v. Wilson, 44 S.W.3d 597 (2001)