## Facts

- Husband and wife married and separated the same day, but remained legally married for nearly 20 years while living apart.
- They had one child, Paul, who lived with the wife; she maintained the home and provided child care with little financial support from the husband.
- During the marriage, the husband developed substantial business interests as an automobile dealer with multiple dealerships and significant earning capacity.
- The wife was a homemaker with no meaningful training or experience to generate income.
- The total marital estate (community and separate property) was valued at nearly $1 million.
- The trial court granted the husband a divorce and awarded the wife property valued at $268,790.98; the court stated that the “facts and equities” could warrant setting aside the husband’s separate personal property to the wife if necessary to uphold the division.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the wife $268,790.98 from an estate worth nearly $1 million, allegedly rendering the division unjust and unfair.
2. Whether the trial court acted outside its authority by indicating it would set aside the husband’s separate personal property to the wife if necessary to effectuate the property division.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the divorce decree and property division.
- The court held the division was not so manifestly unjust or unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
- The court accepted the trial court’s reliance on the “facts and equities,” including the husband’s superior earning capacity and the wife’s limited ability to support herself.

## Legal Principles

- In a Texas divorce, the trial court has broad discretion to divide the community estate in a manner that is “just and right,” with due regard for each party’s rights.
- An appellate court will not disturb the property division absent a clear abuse of discretion shown by a division that is manifestly unjust and unfair.
- A trial court may order an unequal division when supported by equitable considerations, including disparities in earning power, needs, caregiving and homemaker contributions, and a spouse’s failure to provide adequate support.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a disproportionate award to the wife because the trial court acted within its wide discretion to reach a just-and-right division in light of the parties’ long separation, the wife’s caregiving role with minimal support, and the husband’s substantially greater earning capacity.


Zaruba v. Zaruba, 498 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1973, writ dism’d)