his job and the other half of the money that she removed from their joint checking account. Both parties were awarded in then- entirety the investments, retirement accounts, and real property that they held prior to the marriage. There is no evidence that any of this property was part of the community estate. To the extent that the trial court’s disposition of the parties’ estate did favor Robert, the trial court acted within its discretion. See Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698-99 & n. 1; Hailey, 176 S.W.3d at 380. Although the record does support Elaine’s argument that she has a lower potential for future e e affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . There are two Texas cases analyzing claims for annulment based on fraud. See McLarty v. McLarty, 433 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1968) (<HOLDING>); McCullough v. McCullough, 69 Tex. 682, 7 S.W.
holding that bank accounts in husbands and wifes joint names were property in a tenancy by the entirety holding that misrepresentation by a woman to a man that she was practicing birth control was insufficient under the uniform parentage act and new mexico public policy to relieve the man as the biological father of child support obligation holding that a wifes minimal involvement in her husbands business coupled with the lack of evidence that she knew of or intended to further her husbands fraudulent schemes was insufficient evidence of conspiracy holding concealment of wifes pregnancy by another man from minor husbands father did not constitute grounds for annulment holding that trial court did not err in imputing income to wife for purposes of child support based on the continued monthly payment of wifes living expenses by wifes mother