Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE B. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES · CHAPTER 4. PREMARITAL AND MARITAL PROPERTY AGREEMENTS
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105 (2026)

Enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 4.105. ENFORCEMENT. (a) A partition or exchange agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is requested proves that:

(1) the party did not sign the agreement voluntarily; or

(2) the agreement was unconscionable when it was signed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:

(A) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(B) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and

(C) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

(b) An issue of unconscionability of a partition or exchange agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.

(c) The remedies and defenses in this section are the exclusive remedies or defenses, including common law remedies or defenses.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
In Re the Marriage of Smith, 115 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “The common-law defenses of failure of consideration and ambiguity are still available against the Smiths' agreement.”
Martin v. Martin, 287 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (Vernon 2006).”
Nesmith v. Berger, 64 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Nesmith challenges this finding, arguing that Berger pressured her to sign an agreement she thought was invalid by threatening not to go on the honeymoon. Family Code section 4.”
Pletcher v. Goetz, 9 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105(b). 9 . See Fanning v.”
Morales v. Morales, 98 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App. 2003). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (Vernon 1998) (emphasis added).”
Jerry Weaks & Joyce Weaks v. Kathleen Jeanette White, 479 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “2014) (providing that certain common law defenses are unavailable against an employer by an employee who is not covered by workers’ compensation insurance and the section does not reinstate or otherwise affect the availability of defenses at common law); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §…”
Leticia Loya v. Miguel Angel Loya, 473 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.105 (a) (providing that a partition or exchange agreement is not 3 On March 15, 2011, Miguel received a bonus from Vitol in the gross amount of $4.”
Alexander Austin Sheshunoff v. Gabrielle Martha Sheshunoff (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
Alexander Austin Sheshunoff v. Gabrielle Martha Sheshunoff (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “BACKGROUND The Marital Property Agreement Appellant Alexander Sheshunoff and Appellee Gabrielle Sheshunoff were married in 1971.”
Sylvia Yvonne Stankewich v. Dennis Joseph Stankewich (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “) (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.105 ; Pletcher v.”
Robert Jamison v. State (Tex. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 2006); Pletcher v.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105(a) — 1 case
Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105(a)(1) — 2 cases
Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
Nesmith v. Berger, 64 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App. 2001). “Nesmith challenges this finding, arguing that Berger pressured her to sign an agreement she thought was invalid by threatening not to go on the honeymoon. Family Code section 4.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105(a)(2) — 2 cases
Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
Martin v. Martin, 287 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App. 2009). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (Vernon 2006).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105(b) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Smith, 115 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App. 2003). “The common-law defenses of failure of consideration and ambiguity are still available against the Smiths' agreement.”
Pletcher v. Goetz, 9 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105(b). 9 . See Fanning v.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 4.105(c) — 2 cases
Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 4.105 (West 1998). Applying section 4.”
Jerry Weaks & Joyce Weaks v. Kathleen Jeanette White, 479 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App. 2015). “2014) (providing that certain common law defenses are unavailable against an employer by an employee who is not covered by workers’ compensation insurance and the section does not reinstate or otherwise affect the availability of defenses at common law); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.