than Robert due to her disability, the trial court was also entitled to consider Elaine’s fraud at the time of her marriage to Robert and her fault in ending the marriage. The trial court also could have considered the evidence that Elaine had a separate estate worth more than $200,000.00 at the time that she separated from Robert and the nature of the property that each party brought into this relatively short-lived marriage. See Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 699; Smith, 836 S.W.2d at 692-93. We cannot conclude that the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably and without reference to any guiding principles in dividing the estate. See Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241-42; Hailey, 176 S.W.3d at 380. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Smith, 836 S.W.2d at 692 (<HOLDING>). We overrule Elaine’s second issue. Conclusion
holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division holding that reviewing court may not reverse trial courts judgment on property division unless trial court has clearly abused its discretion or has made inequitable division holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement