### NUM BER 13-07- 0034 8-CV COURT OF A PPE A LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS C OR PU S C H R IS T I - EDINBURG
LOU IS A LON ZO OLIV A REZ , A pp ellan t,

v . RA EL A JOH NSO N OLIV

A REZ , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 43rd D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nt y , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la
Rae la Johns o n Ol iv ar ez fil ed for div or ce from Loui s O li v ar ez , c lai ming insup porta bility . Th e trial court entere d judgme nt on terms a gr eed upo n by the coup le in open c our

t. Louis appeal s, ass erti ng that: (1 ) he r esc ind ed hi s o pen c our t ag re ement t oL o u is ’s a r g u m e n ts d o n o t c o m p o r t e x a c tly w ith h is is s u e s p r e s e n te d . W e w ill a tt e m p t t o a d d r e s s h is 1 arg um en t s as pres en t ed i n h i s pro s e b ri ef. 2 the div ision of

prope rty and conse rv ato rship and his agreem ent to w aive his r ight to app eal, (2 ) the t ri al cour

t er re d i n g ra nti ng the div or ce on th e g ro und of i nsupp ortabi li ty , and ( 3) Raela violated the divorce decre e. Raela seeks sanct ions fo r f riv olou s app eal. W e af f irm 1 the judgmen t of

the trial court an d de ny sanct ions.

I. B A CK GRO UND Rae la and Loui s w er e marr ied in Jul y 1985, and sto pped li v ing tog ether in 2001. T h e co u p le h a d t wo m in o r ch il d re n a t t h e t im e o f t h e d ivo rc e
. Lo u is wa s se rvi n g a t h ir t yfiv e y ear se ntenc e i n the Tex as Dep artment of C or re cti ons and appear ed at t he Apr il 16, 200 7 divorce hearing pro se. At the h earing, coun sel f or Ra ela ann oun ced to th e trial court that the p arti es ag re ed to a no -faul t di v or ce and j oin t man ag ing co nser v ator shi p of the coup le’s children. Coun sel state d t hat Raela agreed to be resp onsib le f or the ch ildren’s hea lth insuran ce costs. Af ter t h e a gr e em ent w as discusse d in ope n cou rt, Lou is respo nde d by stating that cou nsel’s stat em ent w as "p retty w ell correct.” After addi ti onal di sc uss ion s, the p ar ti es ent e re d i n to an ag re ement w her eby they ag re ed to a no -faul t di v orce b a se d upon ins uppor tabi li ty

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 1. They als o ag re ed to j oin t manag ing co nser v ator shi p and that Loui s w oul d not be re q uir ed to pay chi ld suppo rtunl ess r ele ased from pr is on befor e ei ther ch il d r eache d the a g e of ei g hteen. Rae la ag re ed to co nti nue t he c hil dr en’ s h eal th i nsur ance and be respon si ble f or al l of the deduc ti ble s. Pos ses si on and acc ess w oul d be as ag re ed by the par ti es. Rae la ag re ed not to hi nder co ntac t bet w een t he c hil dr en and thei r father. The pa rt ies furth er ag re ed th at Lou is w ould get the 198 3 Ford pickup truck, Raela would get the 20 00 Im pala , and Raela3

w oul d k eep al l house hol d furni tur e and per sonal i tems in her pos ses si on. Loui s a g re ed on th e r ecor d to the d is posi ti on. The onl y pr oper ty l eft to be di v ide d w as Rae la’ s r eti re ment
ac c o u n t

. A ft e r d i s c u s s i o n s o ff t h e r e c o r d t h e fo l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e t o o k p l ace betw een Raela’s at torne y , Donn a Cox, and Lo uis: Ms

. Cox : As to t he s o le i ss u e o f p ro p e rt y, the teach er s’ re ti re ment sy ste m acc ount of Rael a J ohnso n Ol iv ar ez , th a t wi ll be aw ar ded one hundr ed per centto Ms . O liv ar ez
. Ms . O li v ar ez has addi ti onal ly

agr eed t hat s he w il l pr ov ide M r. Ol iv ar ez w it h an affidav itr ela ted t o hi s c ri minal ca se a n d M r. Ol iv ar ez has ag re ed th at he w il l w aiv e his ri g ht to appeal the deci si on or the ag re ement i n thi s d iv or ce. I s t h a t yo u r u n d e rs t a n d in g o f t h e a gr e e m e n t , Mr

. O li va re z? Mr

. O li va re z: Ye s , a s lo n g a s we c a n c o m e u p wit h t h e a gr e e m e n t s t h a t we

menti oned. Ms . C ox : Y es, thatw il l be th e dec re e. T h e t ri a l c o u rt t h e n gra n t e d t h e d ivo rc e o n t h e re c o rd a n d a ll o we d L o u is t h ir t y d a ys to fil e any

obj ect ion s t o the w ri tten decr ee. The pr opose d decr ee, inc or por ati ng the ter ms of the ag re ement, w as pr omptl y se nt to Lo uis and set forth the ter ms of t he ag re ement. He re pli ed, b y l etter date d M ay

2, 2007, obj ect ing to the d ecr ee. In those object ion s, he state d that he w anted to r etai n hi s r ig ht t o appeal , i n c ontr av enti on of the par ti es’ pr ior

ag re ement i n w hic h he w aiv e d h is right to appeal

. He als o r eq uest ed t h a t h e r e cei v e hi s p er sonal pos ses si ons. The de cr ee w as amended t o r eflectthatLoui s s houl d r ecei v e hi s p er sonal pos ses si ons. The final dec re e
w as si g ned by the tr ial cour t and inc lud ed the ag re ement of t he par ti es to w aiv e the r ig ht to ap peal

.4 II. A N A LY S IS Lou is appe als the judgmen t claiming tha t the trial court erred in gr ant ing the divorce
on i ns up po rta bi l i ty

g r ou nd s , th er e w as n o ag r ee me nt“ ove r t he e s ta te ” a nd a l s o c l ai ms Rae la commi tted fraud, forg er y , embez z lementand theft agai nsthi m and pu t hi m in debt

. Rae la ur g es that the R ule 11 a g re ement, inc lud ing the w aiv er of appeal , w as enforc eabl e, ther e w as no ev ide nce that the d iv or ce s h oul d be g ra nted upon an y g ro und ot her

than ins uppor tabi li ty , and final ly , t hat t he appe al w as friv olo us. At t ri al, the par

ti es enter ed i nto a n ag re ement, the s peci fics of w hic h ar e s et forth abov e. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 11. In or der to be a v ali d R ule 11 a g re ement, itmustbe e it her made i n w ri ti ng or

made i n open cour

t and ente re d of

r ecor d. Id . Agr eem ent s mad e in open cour

t meetthe re q uir ement of R ule 11. See B eck er v. Bec ker

, 997 S.W .2d 3 94, 3 95 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1996, no w ri t)

. Compl ian ce w it h Rul e 11 sat is fies the r eq uir ements of a w ri tten ag re ement re q uir ed in div or ce cas es. See Clanin v. Clanin , 918 S.W .2d 6 73, 677 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 19 96, n o w ri t) ; see als o Langs ton v . Lan gston , N o. 09 -0 5- 281- CV , 200 6 W L 13742 7, at* 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 06, n o pet .) ( mem. op.)

. Gener all y , a par

ty ca nnot appeal from a jud g ment t o w hic h h e h a s cons ented or ag re ed abs ent a n al leg ati on and pr oof of f ra ud , col lus ion or mis re pr esent ati on . Pillitteri v. Br own, 165 S. W .3d 7 15, 7 18 ( Tex. Ap p .– Dall as 2004 , no p et.); s e e H o s e y v . F i r s t N a t ’l Bank , 595 S.W .2d 6 29, 6 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1986, w ri t di sm’ d w .o.j .) ( per
cur ia m ). If a party

w is hes to r epudi ate a n ag re ement, he or sh e mustdo s o before the
re ndi ti on of j udg ment

. See G iles v. Gi les , 8 3 0 S .W .2d 2 32, 2 37 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 1992, no w ri t)

. As par

t of the ag re ement he re , t he par ti es als o w aiv ed th eir

i ndi v idu al ri g hts5

t o a p p e a l t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s j u d g me n t

. P a rt i e s ma y w a i v e a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w b y ag re ement. In re M ar ri age of Long , 946 S.W .2d 9 7, 99 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1997, no w ri t)

. T he reco rd in this c a s e r e f lects tha t the re w as an agreeme nt m ade in open court betw een t he par

ti es. The re cor d al so show s t hat t he dec re e c omported i n al l re spec ts w it h the a g re ement of the par ti es. M or eov er , onc e a c our t or all y r ender s j udg ment on a set tl ement ag re ement the par ti es may not re v oke cons ent to t he ag re ement. S & A R est

. Cor p. v . Lea l , 892 S.W .2d 855, 857 (Tex

. 1995) (p er cur iam)

. A jud g ment is rendered
w hen a tr ial co urt mak es an offici al announc ement or all y in open cour

t of its deci si on upon matter s su b m it te d for a dju dic ati on. Id. In this case , af ter the parties reach ed th eir ag re ement i t w as re ad i nto t he r ecor d i n open cour t and the tri a l jud g e s tated : “A ll r ig ht. T hen the div orce i s gr ant ed. T he agr eem ent s are approved obviously and w e’ll like I said g iv e hi m a 30- day

obj ect ion l etter

and see if w e c an mak e s ur e tha t y ou’ re [s ic ] at lea st had
an o ppo rtunity to rev iew it bef ore I sign anything. Okay?” W e bel iev e that the tr ial cour t ex pr ess ed an int ent t o r ender j udg ment bas ed upon the R ule 11 a g re ement. See G iles , 830 S. W .2d at 235- 237. The obj ect ion per iod w as all ow ed to i nsur e tha t the decr ee comported w it h the parti es’ agr eement. It w as not g iv en
so that Loui s c oul d att empt t o r ev oke his par t of the bar g ain . A lt h oug h Loui s w as
re pr esent ing hi msel f in t he tr ial co urt pr o s e, he is held to t he s ame st andar d as a l ic ensed attor ney
. See M

ar ti nez v. El Pas o C ounty , 218 S.W .3d 841, 844 (Tex . App.–El Pas o 2007, pet. str uck ). W e conclu de tha t the parties en tered into a valid Rule 11 agreem ent . Accordingly Loui s’ s i ss ues ar e ov er ru led

. Loui s’ s remai nin g arg uments i n hi s b ri ef, inc lud ing al leg ed6

ind is cr eti ons by

R ael a w it h r eg ar d to document s L oui s c lai ms w er e i n her pos ses si on th at
w oul d hav e ex oner ated him in his cri minal case and her al leg ed fail ur e to compl y w it h the tr ial co urt’ s fin al jud g ment, ar e notpr oper ly before thi s C our

t becaus e theyco ncer n factual cl aims outs ide the div or ce decr ee w hic h i s t he appe ala ble j udg ment. III

. S ANC T I ON S Rae la ask s t he C our

t t o aw ar d s anct ion s for f riv olo us appeal pur suantto Rul e 45 of the T e xas R ule s o f Appell ate P ro cedur e. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 5. The deci si on to g ra nt
a p p e lla te s anct ion s i s a matte r of dis cr eti on th at t he c our t ex er ci ses w it h pr udenc e and caut ion and onl y

after ca re ful del ibe ra ti on. Angelou v. Afr ic an Ove rs eas Uni

on , 33 S.W .3d 269, 282 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on[14t h D is t.] 2000, no pet .)

. Her e, w e dec li ne to ex er ci se our dis cr eti on i n fav or

of sanc ti ons. Rae la’ s r eq uesti s d eni ed.

IV. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 9th d ay

of June, 2008.