Collins v. Collins, 345 S.W.3d 644

Jeffrey and Debra Collins married in 1974 and accumulated substantial marital assets.
Husband fled to Europe and, with Wife, created Liechtenstein entities Royman Foundation, Silverado Foundation, and Profunda Etablissement, funded with marital assets.
Husband pleaded to federal charges in 1997; Asset Distribution Agreement allocated $3 million to the DOJ and $3 million to others, including Wife and relatives.
Husband refused to authorize distribution of Liechtenstein assets for years; Wife funded family support relying on other assets during divorce proceedings.
In 2006 the government seized $6 million; the DOJ settled, releasing $3 million to satisfy the previous agreement and abandoning claims to the Liechtenstein safe-deposit assets.
A July 6, 2007 written settlement among Husband, Wife, and Liechtenstein entities purportedly divided $3 million and included waivers by Wife of certain interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 6, 2007 agreement is a valid Rule 11 agreement	Collins argues the agreement is a valid Rule 11 instrument.	Collins contends the agreement should be enforced; Wife disputes its effect on property.	The agreement is valid under Rule 11.
Whether the safe deposit box assets were marital property	Wife contends they were community assets subject to division.	Husband asserts assets belonged to Liechtenstein entity Profunda, not the marital estate.	Assets were not part of the marital estate; trial court erred in dividing them.
Whether Wife retained any interest in Profunda, Silverado, or Royman post-settlement	Wife argues settlement affected her interests; the presumption favors community property.	Wife irrevocably waived claims against Profunda and waived beneficial interests in Silverado and Royman; founder's rights not waived.	Wife waived claims against Profunda and was not entitled to 50% founder's/beneficial rights in Silverado and Royman; trial court erred to order such divisions.
Whether the trial court’s property division, based on invalid/unsupported rulings, requires remand of the entire community estate	The court’s errors tainted the entire division, necessitating remand of the whole estate.	Not explicitly argued; emphasis on honoring Rule 11 agreement.	Because improper assets were divided, remand of the entire community estate is required.

Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1982) (assets of a third party not part of marital estate unless alter ego)
McKnight v. McKnight, 543 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1976) (court may only divide spouses' partnership interests, not specific property)
Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996) (parties contract to give effect to clauses; each clause should have effect)
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1985) (remand of entire community estate when error affects division)
Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (interpret contract by giving effect to whole instrument)