Fanning v. Fanning
| Decision Date | 27 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. D-2539,D-2539 |
| Citation | 847 S.W.2d 225 |
| Parties | Nita Kissel FANNING, Petitioner, v. Whitney Ely FANNING, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
LaNelle L. McNamara, Waco, for petitioner.
Pamela E. George, Houston, for respondent.
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, 843 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tex.1992) (citing authorities). It may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Limbaugh v. Limbaugh
...[1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135, 152 (Tex.App.-Waco 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 847 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.1993) (per curiam); Humble, 805 S.W.2d at 563; Lettieri, 654 S.W.2d at 556; see also Levine v. Maverick County Water Control & Improvement Dist., 884 S.W......
-
Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Alexander, 03-05-00297-CV.
...19, 23 (Tex. 1993) (remanding cause in the interests of justice in light of new standard announced by court); Fanning v. Fanning, 847 S.W.2d 225, 226 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) (op. on reh'g) (remand in interests of justice after law changed while appeal was pending); see also Tex. R.App. P. ......
-
Marriage of Moore, Matter of
...190 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1945, no writ) and Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.App.--Waco 1992), modified, 847 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.1993), as standing for the proposition that a "spouse's fraud on the community is an appropriate basis for separate damages" and that a "defraud......
-
Ahmed v. Ahmed
...enforceability of the Mahr agreement, rather than rendering judgment, is in the interests of justice in this case. See Fanning v. Fanning, 847 S.W.2d 225, 226 (Tex.1993) (remanding to allow wife opportunity to challenge enforceability of premarital agreement on other grounds); Scott Bader, ......