COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

GARY EDWARD MORSE, Appellant,

v. DANA A NN MORSE, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00046- CV

Appea l from 109th District Court of Winkler County , Texas (TC # 15,320)

O P I N I O N Gar y E d wa rd Morse appea ls an order enter ed on a motion to compel execution of closing documents and an orig inal petition for po s t -divorce division of proper ty

. This court order ed the parties to attend mediation pursuant to Section 154.021 of t he Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code 1 and they enter ed into an irre vocable mediated se ttlement ag ree ment (MSA). Among other things, the ag ree ment require d Gar y to dismiss this appea l. Gar y has instead filed a motion to set aside the MSA. For the r easons that f ollow, we deny

the motion and dismiss the appe al.
F ACTUAL SUMMA RY Dana Morse filed a petition for divorce on J uly 20, 2007. The trial court signe d a final decr ee

on September 25, 2008. Neither o f the parties appea led. Dana later filed an orig inal petition for post-divorce division of proper ty she alleg ed Gar

y had hidden during the pendenc y of the divorce

. She also filed a motion to compel execution of closing documents. On Fe bruar y 18, 2009, the trial
court enter ed an order addre ssing both the m o t i o n t o compel and the petition for post-divorce

T E X
. C IV
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E A N N
. § 1 5 4

. 0 2 1 ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )

. 1division of proper ty

. Gar y filed notice of appea l indicating his intent to appea l from that order

. 2
Pursuant to our order , the parties attended mediation and, acco rd i ng to the status repor t filed by
Dana , they resolved all matters of controve rsy betwee n them. Dana attache d to her repor t a copy of the MSA signe d by the parties and their attorney s. Among other things, Gar y ag ree d to dismiss his
appea l as part of the settlement ag ree ment. He did not comply with the ag ree ment but instead filed

a motion to set it aside on the g round that Dana had intentionally brea ched the ag re em en t b y damag ing some items of proper ty awa rded to him. Dana

responds that be cause the MSA satisfies the require ments of Section 6.602 of the Family Code, it is not subject to revoc ation by either party

.

MEDIATED SET TLE MENT AG REEMENT A mediated settlement ag ree ment is immediately binding on the parties if the ag ree ment: (1) provides in a prominently display ed statement that is in boldfac ed ty pe, capital letters, or underlined, that the ag ree ment “is not subject to revoc ation”; (2) is signe d by the parties; and (3) is signe d by the parties’ attorney s who are prese nt at the time of signing

. T E X .F A M .C O D E .AN N
. § 6. 602(b)( Ver non 2006). I f an MSA meets these re quirements, a pa rty is entitled to judgme nt notwithstanding Rul e 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e or another rule of law. T E X .F A M .C O D E .AN N
. § 6. 602(c)

. Compli ance wi th Section 6.602 makes the ag ree ment an exception to Sections 7.001 and 7.006, which allow revision and repudia tion of settlement ag ree ments. T E X
. F A M .C O D E AN N
. §§ 7.001, 7.006; In re Joyne r , 196 S.W .3d 883, 889 (Tex.App.--Te x arka na 2006, pet. denied)

. A court is not require d to enfor ce an MSA if it is illega l in nature or procur ed by fra ud, duress, coer cion, or other dishonest means. Joyne r , 196 S.W .3d at 890; Boyd v. Boyd , 67 S.W .3d 398, 404-05 (Tex.App.--F ort

G a r y a l s o f

i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h i c h i n d i c a t e d h i s i n t e n t t o a p p e a l f r o m a c o n t e m p t o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e 2 t r i a l c o u r t

. W e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a c o n t e m p t o r d e r b y d i r e c t a p p e a l

. N o r m a n v
. N o r m a n , 6 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 5 , 6 5 5 ( T e x . 1 9 8 5 ) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ; T r a c y v
. T r a c y , 2 1 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 0 ( T e x . A p p . - - D a l l a s 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t

. )

. C o n t e m p t o r d e r s i n v o l v i n g c o n f

i n e m e n t m a y b e r e v i e w e d b y w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s ; c o n t e m p t o r d e r s t h a t d o n o t i n v o l v e c o n f i n e m e n t m a y b e r e v i e w e d o n l y t h r o u g h m a n d a m u s . T r a c y , 2 1 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t 5 3 0

.Worth 2002, no pet.)(holding that § 6.602 mediated settlement ag ree ment may be subject to

resc ission due to intentional nondisclosure.); In re Kasschau , 11 S.W .3d 305, 312 (Tex.App.-- Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, orig

. proce eding )(holding that a mediated settlement ag ree ment may be set aside on the g round of illeg ality ). Gar y does not dispute that the MSA meets all of the require ments of Section 6.602. Unless he can establish a ground for revocation, it is binding. The only g round Gary alleg es i s that Dana intentionally brea ched the settlement ag ree ment with malice by damag ing cer tain items of proper

ty

. He cites no authority that an MSA can be revoke d due to a party ’s al l eged intentional brea ch. Be cause Gar

y has failed to a ssert a via ble g round for

setting a side or re voking the MSA, w e deny his moti on. The terms of the MSA require Gar y to dismis s t h i s ap peal. I n the interest of judicial
economy , we will not require Gar y to fi l e a fo rmal motion. I nstead, we sua sponte dismiss the
appea l.

Aug ust 31, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.