### NUM BER 13-08- 0038 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
JA NETRA E L OEH R, A pp ellan t,
v . ROL A ND L OEH R, A pp ellee.

O n a p p e a l f r o m t h e C o u n t y C o u rta tL a w of A rans as Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Janet Rae Loehr chal len g es the fin al decree of di v or ce entered by the tr ial
cour t enfor ci ng a medi ated set tl ement ag re ement (M SA or ag re ement) betw een J anet and appel lee Rol and Loehr

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 6.6 02 (Verno n 200 6). By six issues, Janetarg ues that: ( 1) the tr ial co urt er re d in deny ing her motion for new tri al becau se the MS A w as procured by fraud or , al ter nati v ely , w as the p ro ductof mutual or uni lat er al2

mis tak e; an d ( 2) the tr ial co urt l ack ed j ur is dic ti on to di v ide the coup le 's c or por ate a ss ets
an d ou t- of- s ta te r ea l p rop er ty

. W e affi r m. I. BACKGROUND Janetfil ed for div or ce f ro m R ola nd i n the sp ri ng of 2007. On Janua ry 28, 2008, Janetand Rol and s p e n t the d ay neg oti ati ng a s ettl ement ag re ement for thei r pendi ng div o rce
. Eac h par

ty w as re pr esent ed by

an a ttor ney

and an ac count ant d ur ing the mediat ion proces s. At the end of the day , Janet and R ola nd and thei r attor ney s s ig ned t he MS A, w hic h di v ide d the co upl e's co m m u n ity and separate p ro per

ti es. The ag re ement inc lud ed, d irect ly

abov e the si g nature l ine s, an admoni ti on readi ng and app e ar ing as follo w s: "THI S AG RE EM EN T IS N OT SU BJE CT TO RE VOC ATION ." By si g nin g the MS A, Jane t and Roland agreed tha t " a ll r e lated claims an d con troversies betw een them are her eby settl ed in accordance " w it h the agreement and ac know led g ed th at "t he par ti es and thei r couns el hav e throug hly re v iew ed" the ag re ement and, "w her e necessa ry, modified itto confor m to t he req uire ments of thei r ag re ement." The ag re ement w as filed w it h the tr ial co urt. On M ar ch 7, 20 08, Janet filed a moti on for cont inu ance and re q uest for th e c our t t o order the par ti es back to mediat ion or to submi t a re v is ed ag re ement. In her moti on, J anet
ass erted t hat s he had been fraudul entl y ind uced int o s ig nin g the MS A; J anet cont ended that her ac count ant h ad been unprepar ed to as si st her at the t ime of

t h e m e d ia ti on and that cer tai n proper

ti es w er e i ncor re ctl y

categ or iz ed in the agreement as Rol and' s s eparate proper ty

. Rol and t hen fil ed a moti on for entr y of jud g ment on Ma rc h 10, 2008, ask ing the
cour t t o enforc e the M SA. Th e t r i a l c o u rth e l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e p a rt i e s ' m o t i o n s o n M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 8

. R o lan d tes ti fied th at t he par

ti es came t o an ag re ement after a da y -l ong medi ati on. He sta ted t hatT h e c o u r t e n te r e d fin d in g s o ff a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o fl a w . J a n e t d o e s n o t c h a ll e n g e th e tria l c o u r t's 1 f in d in g s a n d c o n c lu s io n s o n a p p e a l. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e w e h a v e a c o m p le te re c o r d b e f o r e u s , th e tria l c o u r t's f in d i n g s a re n o t c o n c l u s i v e
. See J & J M ar ine, I nc. v. Le , 98 2 S

. W

. 2d 91 8, 92 4 ( T ex
. A pp
. –C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.). 3 both par ti es w er e repr esent ed by att or ney s a nd ac count ants . Rol and g enerall y ag re ed th at the negotiat ion ha d involv ed a proce ss of "giv e an d take " an d tha t, alth ough no t com plete ly sat is fied w it h the re sul t, he si g ned the ag re ement at the end of the day

. Janettes ti fied th at she e x perien ced so me conf usion during the ne gotiation regarding the ident ity of certain lan d. Ho wever, Janet c onfir med i n her tes ti mony

that"[s he] c oul d tel l w hic h pi eces of prop erty" w ere w hich. Ja net f urthe r te stif ied tha t she w as dissat isf ied w ith the performa nce of her acc ountantand bla med hi m for her i nabi li ty to re cog niz e c ertai n proper ti es. At t he c oncl usi on of thathear ing , t he tr ial courtordered the parti es to s ubmitbr iefin g regarding w hy the MSAsh ould o r sho uld not b e ent ered a s t he f inal judgme nt. Evidence atta ched to Jane t's brief ing i nclud ed h er af f idavit, in w hi c h J a net ex plaine d he r ration ale for c lai ming that Rol and had commi tted fraud. Janet ex pla ine d that she and Rol and had tw o pi eces of proper

ty i n W oodbur

y C ounty , I ow a. One o f th o se p ro per ti es w as the separate p ro per

ty of Rol and; the c oupl e referred to thi s p ro per ty as the "W oodbur

y " tract

. The other

w as the s eparate p ro per ty of Janet ; t he coupl e referred to thi s p ro per ty as the "Peterson" tract

. In her aff ida v it , Janet cont ended that Rol and misl ed her b y l abel ing the "Pe terson " tract as " Rock T ownship, W ood bury" in t he MSA. Ja net a lso averred that , in t h e MS A , Ro la n d h a d li s t e d ce rt a in c o m m u n it y co rp o ra t e a s s e t s a s h is se p a ra t e p ro p e rt y, and becau se of t his mis pla cement , she w as not a ler ted a s t o thi s e rroneous ca teg or iz ati on. On M arc h 24 , 20 08 , th e c ou rt en te r ed a fi na l d ec r ee o f di v orc e mi r ror i ng t he t er ms of the MS A. Janet filed a mot ion for n ew tr ial on A pr il 23, 2008, w hic h i ncl uded an other 1 aff ida v itthat made ess enti all y the same all eg ati ons as Janet 's pr ior aff ida v it

. She as kedW e ad dr ess Jan et ' s secon d, t hi r d, and f our t h i ssues b ef or e her fi r st i ssue because our deci si on o n 2 th o s e i s s u e s w i l l g u i d e o u r d e c i s i o n o n th e fi rs t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 4 the cour t for a new tr ial on h er

cl aim for reci si on or

r eformati on of the MS A bas ed on fraud, mista ke, or imp rope r conversi on of sepa rate property. A hea ring w as he ld, an d the court deni ed her

moti on on June 3, 20 08. This appeal ens ued. II. D ISC US SION A. Me dia ted S ettl ement A g re ement By th ree i ss ues, Ja net a rg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n refusing to re sc ind the MS A and deny ing her

moti on for new

tr ial

. In he r sec ond i ss ue, J anet cont ends that the 2 agreem ent shou ld have bee n rescinde d beca use her signature was procured by Roland's fraud. In her thi rd and fourth is sues , J anet chal len g es the e nforce abi li ty of the a g re ement on th e ba sis of mu tua l or unilat eral mista ke, respe ctiv ely. She a sks this Court to reverse the judgmen t of

the trial court an d rem and for a new tr ial. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew and Appl ic abl e Law W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt' s d e n ial of a moti on for new tr ial for a buse of dis creti on. In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 1 12, 1 14 ( Tex . 200 6) ; Ricks v. Ricks , 1 6 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 6 (T e x. App.–D all as 2005, no pet .)

. A co u rt a b u ses i ts dis creti on i f it act s a rb it ra ri ly or unr eason abl y

or w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing r ule s a nd pr inc ipl es. Ricks , 169 S.W .3d a t 526; see a lso Olvera v. Olvera , No

. 0 1
- 0 7 -0 0 2 3 1 -C V , 2 0 0 8 W L 5 9 8 3 0 5 , a t*4 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] Mar. 6, 20 08, no pe t.) (mem . op. ). Un d e r sec ti on 6. 602 of the family co de, a n M SA i s i mmediat ely bi ndi ng on t he par ti es if: (1 ) a prominen tl y di spl ay ed ( e.g . bol dfaced, c api tal l etters, or under li ned) state me nt provides tha t the agreeme nt "is not su bject to rev ocat ion" ; (2) the agreem ent is signed by the parties; and ( 3 ) t h e a gr e em ent is si gned by the pa rties' atto rneys w ho a re5

pr esentat the t ime of si g nin g
. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE
. A NN . § 6.602( b) ; see Cay an v . C ayan , 38 S.W .3d 1 61, 1 65 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g thatse cti on 6. 60 2 c rea te s a n op ti on for d i v orc i ng p ar

ti es w he r eb y

t he i r a g ree me ntis bi nd i ng a t th e ti me of ex ecut ion rather

than at the ti me final jud g ment is re nder ed)

. "If a medi ated set tl ement ag re eme n t me e t s [ t h o s e ] r e q u i r e me n t s [ , ]

. . . a p a rt y i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n t o n the mediat ed set tl ement ag re ement notw it hst andi ng Rul e 11

. . . or anot her r ule of law ." T EX
. F AM
. C ODE
. A NN
. § 6. 602( c) ; see als o Her sz age v . Her sz age , N o. 13-06 -0 0257- CV , 200 7 W L 23239 79, a t * 4- 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 16, 2007, no p et.) (m em. op. ). An agreem en t th at me et s th e r eq ui r em en ts of s ec ti on 6. 60 2 i s "mo r e bi nd i ng th an a ba sic
w ri tten cont ra ct. " In r

e Joyner , 196 S.W .3d 8 83, 8 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, pet. deni ed)

. How ev er , a tr ia l co u rt n e ed notenforc e an MS A "i f it is i ll eg al in nature or w as procured by

fraud, duress , c oer ci on, o r other di shone st means. " Id . at890. 2. Fraud Janetcl aims thatR ola nd fraud ule ntl y i nduce d her i nto s ig nin g thei r MS A by mis re present ing the nature of cer tai n pi e ce s o f

p ro per ty l is ted o n the i nv entor

y att ached to t hei r ag re ement. A fr audul ent i nduce ment c lai m r eq uires ev ide nce that: (1) Rol and made a mater ial m is re pr esent ati on that w as false; (2) Rola nd knew the mis re pr esent ati on
w as false or

as ser ted i t w it hout know led g e of i ts tr uth; (3 ) Rol and k new Ja net i ntended to actupon the mi srepr esent ati on; ( 4) the mis re pr esent ati on w as, in fact, reli ed upon ; and ( 5)
suc h reli ance caus ed J anet inj ur y . See In r

e F ir stMer it Bank , 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 8 (T e x. 2001) ; see a lso Olvera , 200 8 W L 59830 5, at*4 ( addr ess ing f ra udul ent induc ement i n the cont ext of

a section 6.60 2 MSA). Janetas ser

ted i n her

aff ida v it s t hat R ola nd i ntent iona llymis led her by mis chara cte ri z ing ce rt ain proper ty i n the M SA. H ow ev er , J anet' s s pecul ati ons in her6

aff ida v it s a s t o R ola nd's int enti ons do not prov e he made a mater ial mis re pr esent ati on th at he k new w as false. See Ricks , S.W .3d at 527 (c oncl udi ng thatw ife's bare as ser ti ons that the mar ketv alu e of cer tai n mar it al proper

ty w as incorrect ly

r ecorded i n the M SA di d not prov e tha t hus band mi srepr esent ed the tr ue v alu e of t he proper ty ). I n fact, Ja net t est ified at t he Marc h 13, 2008 he ar ing thatsh e w as abl e to ide nti fy the p ro per ti es and t hat s he bla med her

ac count ant for

any co n fusion she ex per ien ced re g ardin g the ide nti ty of the proper ti es. W e conc lud e tha t J anet pr esent ed no ev ide nce that Rol and mi srepr esent ed the n ature of the proper ti es in the M SA w it h the i ntent ion thatJa net a ct on i t t o her detr iment

. Regard le s s , by pursu ing a section 6. 602 agreeme nt, Ja net and Roland w ere re mov ing thei r div or ce from tradi ti onal se ttl ement procedu re s. See In r e Joyner

, 196 S.W .3d at 889 ("[T ]he purpo se of med iation [und er section 6

. 6 0 2 ] i s t o let pa rties settle the ir property as the y

see f it, keep ing those m atte rs out of the c o u rt ro o m. "); C ayan , 38 S.W .3d a t 166 ( re asoni ng thatthe Leg is lat ur e c re ated a "procedu ra l shor tcu t" by enac ti ng sec ti on 6. 602)

. The tr ial co urt w as enti tl ed to en f o rce Ja net a nd R ola nd's M SA w it hout
re g ard to w hether

"the ter ms of the ag re ement [w er e] j ustand ri g ht." Cay an , 38 S.W .3d
a t 1 6 6

. W h e n p re s e n t e d wit h a va li d , b in d in g MS A , a c o u rt c a n n o t s u b s t it u t e i t s o wn jud g ment for that of t he par ti es and modify

the ag re ement. See In r e Joyner , 196 S.W .3d at 89 0-91 . Here, t h e c o u rt h a d before it an agreem ent sig ned by both parties an d the ir attor ney s t hat c ontai ned c lea r and c onspi cuous la n guage s tati ng the ag re ement w as irrevo c a ble. By si gning the agreeme nt, Ja net and Roland af f irmed thatthey and th eir
coun sel had thorou ghly rev iew ed th e con ten ts and agreed tha t all o f their claims w ere set tl ed by

the ag re ement. W e w il l not re w ard Janet w it h "a re pr iev e from the ag re ement" merel y bec ause she faile d to ex er ci se due di li g ence in re v iew ing the ter ms and con dit ion sI n he r f i r st i ssue, Jane t cl ai m s t hat t he a gr eem ent v i ol at ed f am i l y code sect i on 7

. 002 by awar di ng 3 J a n e t' s s e p a ra te p ro p e rty to R o l a n d

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7

. 00 2(b )( 1) (V ern on 20 06 ). H ow eve r, b e c a u s e w e h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e M S A w a s n o t in v a lid a te d b y f r a u d , t h e tr ia l c o u r t h e r e d id n o t e r r in enf or ci ng t he t er m s o f J anet and R ol and' s i r r ev ocabl e M SA

. A cou r t cann ot m odi f y t he t er m s of a v al i d, b i n d i n g M S A a n d i s n o t re q u i re d to a s s u re th a t t h e d i v i s i o n o f p ro p e rty i n th e M S A i s ju s t a n d ri g h t. S ee I n re Joyner , 1 9 6 S .W .3 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 9 , 8 9 0
- 9 1 ( T e x . A p p .– T e x a r k a n a 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n ie d )

. T h e r e f o r e , w e a ls o o v e r r u le Ja ne t ' s f i r st i ss ue b ec au se t he co ur t ap pr op r i at el y di v i de d t he p r op er t y a cc or di ng t o t he t er m s of t he M SA. 7 before si g nin g her name to the M SA. Cay an , 38 S. W .3d a t 167 ; see als o Her sz age , 200 7 W L 23239 79, a t * 6 ( hol din g that par ti es to an M SA mus t protec t t hemsel v es by r ev iew ing t h e a g r e e me n tb e fo r e s i g n i n g a n d r e fu s i n g t o r e v o k e a n M S Am e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e w i fe failed to ade quately i nspe ct the term s). Becau se Jan et an d Rolan d's agreem ent met all the re q uirements for a bin din g MS A and becau se Janet did not prov e th a t Ro lan d fraudul entl y

i nduce d her

as sentto the a g re ement, the tr ial courtdid not abus e di sc re ti on in enforc ing the MS A. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 6.6 02(b ); In re Joyner , 196 S.W .3d a t 889. Ac cordin g ly , J anet' s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. 3 3. Mistake In he r thi rd and fourth is sues , J anet arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n enforc ing the MS A bec ause itw as the resul t of mut ual or uni lat er al mis tak e. How ev er , J anet prov ide s us w it h no author it y , and w e find none bin din g on thi s Cou rt , app ly ing the cont ra ct doct ri ne of mist ake to s ect ion 6.60 2 ag re ements

. Janet an d R ola nd's ag re ement un der se cti on 6.602 w as "more bin din g than a basi c w ri tten cont ra ct. " In r e Joyner , 196 S.W .3d a t 889

. Abse nt fra ud, see Cay

an , 38 S.W .3d at 167, "not hing eithe r party could ha v e do ne would hav e modi fied or

v oid ed th e [M SA] once e veryo n e h a d s ig ned i t." In r e Joyner

, 196 S.W .3d at 889

. T here fore, w e conclu de tha t the t rial cou rt d id not a buse its discretion in deny ing Ja net' s mot ion for n ew tr ial on the basi s of mis tak e i n the M SA. Ja net' s t hird and fourth is sues are ov er ru led

.8

B. Jur is dic ti on By her fifth i ss ue, J anet arg ues that the tr ial courtlack ed subj ect -mat ter j ur is dic ti on to di v ide the coupl e's out- of-st ate real proper ty . In her si xth is sue, Janet conten ds that the court la c k ed j ur i s di c ti on to di v i de th e c ou pl e' s c or po r at e as s et s — th at th e c ou rt w as only perm itted to divi de sh ares of stock. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew W het her a cou rt has subject-ma tter jurisdiction is a question of law and is subject to de nov o rev iew

. Tex. D ep't of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 1 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 2004)

. 2. Out- of-Stat e Proper ty ; C or por ate A ss ets Cit in g Mi

ller v. M il ler , J a n e t a rg u e s t h a t Te x a s t r i a l c o u rt s a r e n o t v e s ted w it h ju ri s d ic t io n t o a d ju d ic a t e t it le t o la n d in a n o t h e r s t a t e
. 7 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 8 (T e x. App .–A ustin 1 986 , wri t ref 'd n.r.e ). H owev er, the court he re engaged in no such adj udi cat ion

. The tr ial courtm er ely enfor ced an ag re ement be tw een t he par ti es that w as immedi atel y

bi ndi ng w hen ex ecut ed. See C ayan , 3 8 S .W .3d a t 165 ; In re Joyner , 196 S.W .3d a t 890 -9 1 ( hol din g that a tr ial courtis w it hout dis creti on to modi fy a v ali d, bi ndi ng MS A ). Mo re o ve r, e ve n in t h e a b s e n c e o f a se c t io n 6

. 6 0 2 MS A , T e xa s co u rt s h a ve jur is dic ti on unde r the famil y co de to aw ard proper

ty i n a d iv or ce wh ereve r tha t prope rty is si tuate d. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 7.002( b) ( Ver non 200 6) ( emphasi s added)

. As su ch, t h e t r i a l c o u rtd i d n o t e r r i n e n fo r c i n g J a n e t a n d R o l a n d ' s M S A t h a t d i v i d e d c e rt a i n o u t
- o fs t a t e p ro p e rt y. W it h reg ard to her

si xth i ss ue, J anet cl aims that , bec ause a c or por ati on i s a n ent it y in it sel f separate from i ts shareho ld e rs, t h e a ss ets of a c or por ati on do not b elo ng to the sp o u se s wh o own t h e co rp o ra ti o n as co m m u n it y pro p e rt y. Ge n e ra lly cit in g McKnigh t v.9

Mc Kni ght , J anet arg ues that thi s separate leg al ide nti ty prev ents a t ri al cour

t from div idi ng cor por ate a ss ets and that, rather , a cour t is onl y permit ted to div ide the spous es' sh ar es of stoc k. 543 S.W .2d 863 (Tex

. 1976)

. Nev erthel ess , Janet poi nts us to no l aw creati ng an ex cept ion to the immedi atel y bin din g nature of a v ali d s ect ion 6.60 2 M SA for co rp or ate
ass ets

. See C ayan , 38 S. W .3d a t 165 . Th e fam ily code provi des th at a pa rty to a prop erly
ex ecut ed MS A is enti tl ed to jud g ment on the ag re ement notw it hst andi ng any other ru le of law

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 6.602( c)

. H er e, J anet and R ola nd ent er ed i nto a bi ndi ng MS A; R ola nd w as enti tl ed to enforc e that ag re ement, and the tr ial cour t did not er r in doi ng so. See id .; see als o Her sz age , 200 7 W L 23239 79, a t * 5- 6 (e nforci ng an M SA w her e the evidence sh owed thatthe pa rties knowing ly ente red into an irrev ocab le agreem ent ). It is i mport ant t o not e tha t J anet prov ide d thi s Cou rtw it h no author it y , and , ag ain , w e find none, addr ess ing thes e jur is dic ti onal i ss ues in the c ontext of a s ect ion 6.60 2 M SA. W ithou t mo re, w e are no t persua ded thatthe tri al court w as w ithou t jurisdiction to enforce the b ind ing , ir re v ocabl e agreement betw een Janet and Rol and. W e ov er ru le Janet 's fifth and sixth issue s. III

. CO NC LUS ION The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 8th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 9.