Williamson v. Williamson
Texas Court of Appeals
986 S.W.2d 379 (1999)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Charlotte Williamson (plaintiff) and Ralph Williamson (defendant) were married and subsequently divorced. The Williamsons signed a property-settlement agreement after a lengthy trial process during which Ralph presented facts about the community estate. During this process, Charlotte had access to the community property’s financial information, and she was represented by a lawyer and two accountants. The trial court incorporated the settlement agreement into the final divorce decree. After the decree was no longer appealable and a motion for a new trial could no longer be filed, Charlotte brought a bill of review, arguing that the settlement agreement must be set aside because Ralph had forced her to sign it. Charlotte claimed that Ralph had threatened that if she did not sign the settlement agreement, he would give all of the property to her, knowing that she could not handle the management responsibilities. Moreover, Charlotte argued the agreement must be set aside because Ralph had misrepresented the health of the community estate. Ralph moved for summary judgment, arguing that the bill of review must fail because Charlotte did not exhaust her legal remedies. The trial court granted Ralph’s motion, and Charlotte appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larsen, 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.