(DOWNLOAD) "Nita Kissel Fanning v. Whitney Ely Fanning" by Supreme Court of Texas NO. D-2539 " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Nita Kissel Fanning v. Whitney Ely Fanning
- Author : Supreme Court of Texas NO. D-2539
- Release Date : January 27, 1993
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
Per Curiam Opinion ON MOTION FOR REHEARING In this divorce case Nita Fanning challenges the validity of a prenuptial agreement,
claiming that it is unconstitutional and also that it was executed under duress and is unconscionable. The trial court found
the agreement unconstitutional but did not make findings for Nita on her other claims; the court also refused Whitney Fanning's
request to find that the agreement was voluntarily entered into. The trial court granted the divorce, awarded custody of the
couple's three children to Nita, ordered Whitney to pay child support, awarded Nita damages for Whitney's breach of fiduciary
duty based in part on the unenforceability of the prenuptial agreement, and divided the marital estate. While the case was
pending before the court of appeals, this Court issued its opinion in Beck v. Beck, 814 S.W.2d 745 (Tex. 1991), as a result
of which the appeals court held that the premarital agreement is not unconstitutional and that it should be enforced. The
court of appeals reversed the property division and award of damages for breach of fiduciary duty, and remanded the case for
reconsideration of these issues and enforcement of the premarital agreement. In all other respects the divorce decree was
affirmed. 828 S.W.2d 135. We agree that the case must be remanded to the trial court, but we conclude that the issues to be reconsidered should not
be so narrowly confined. The trial court should not, in the interest of justice, be required to enforce the premarital agreement
but should have the opportunity to reconsider Nita's other challenges to its enforceability. Nita's failure to request, and
the trial court's failure to make, findings regarding duress and unconscionability may well have been premised on the reasoning
that those claims need not be addressed if the agreement was unconstitutional. We have broad discretion to remand a case in
the interest of justice, TEX. R. APP. P. 180, and have often done so when "it appears from the record that the losing party
might be able to recover under some other established legal theory that was not developed at the first trial." Westgate, Ltd.
v. State, ___ S.W.2d ___, ___ (Tex. 1992) (citing authorities). It may be necessary for the trial court to redetermine the
property division regardless of the enforceability of the premarital agreement, but it need not redetermine damages unless
the agreement is found to be enforceable. If the damages Nita claims for breach of fiduciary duty are unliquidated and a retrial
to determine those damages is necessary, Whitney's liability for alleged breaches must also be retried as long as that liability
is contested. TEX. R. APP. P. 184(b).