Archambault v. Archambault
Texas Court of Appeal
763 S.W.2d 50 (1988)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Shanna Archambault (plaintiff) and Michael Archambault (defendant) were married and subsequently divorced. At trial, the court submitted several issues to the jury, including the proportionate division of community property, the fair market value of community-property items, and child support to be paid by Michael. The jury found that the proportionate division of community property should be 60 percent to Shanna and 40 percent to Michael. The jury placed values on the property items and found that Michael should pay $1,200 monthly in child support. The trial court disregarded the jury’s award. Although it was unclear whether the trial court used the jury’s values attributed to the community property because the trial court did not include this information in its findings, the parties agreed on appeal that the trial court gave 73 percent of the community property to Michael and 27 percent to Shanna. Moreover, the trial court ordered Michael to pay $800 monthly in child support. The trial court provided no justification for disregarding the jury’s findings or giving a disproportionate award of community property to Michael. Shanna appealed, arguing the trial court ignored the jury’s award and deprived her of her right to trial by jury.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burgess, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.