Vickery v. Vickery
Texas Supreme Court
999 S.W.2d 342 (1999)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Glenn Vickery (defendant) and Helena Vickery (plaintiff) were married. Glenn was a lawyer and was sued by a former client for malpractice. Glenn told Helena that they needed to divorce in order to protect their community property from an adverse judgment in the malpractice suit. Helena did not want to divorce, so Glenn hired Dianne Richards (defendant), a former law-school classmate, to initiate the divorce on behalf of Helena without her consent. Richards filed an answer and cross-petition for Glenn. Although Glenn’s malpractice case settled, he did not tell Helena. Under the impression that the malpractice suit was ongoing and divorce was necessary to protect community assets, Helena agreed to a 7.5 percent distribution from the community estate. Glenn then hired a lawyer to evict Helena and their seven-year-old daughter from the primary residence. Glenn then married Helena’s best friend. Helena sued Glenn and Richards to set aside the former divorce decree and distribution for fraud. The jury found Glenn and Richards liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court gave Helena 58 percent of the community estate as well as $1.3 million in mental-anguish damages, $1.5 million prejudgment interest, and $1 million in punitive damages against Glenn. The court awarded Helena $350,000 in damages against Richards. The court of appeals affirmed. Glenn and Richards filed a petition for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Hecht, 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.