### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00702- CV

In the Interestof D. C. II, J. A. C. and A. M. C.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 97-1 3758 , HO NORAB LE J. ANDREW HATH COCK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Dana Carson appeals t he dis trict court’s order enforc ing his obli g ation to pay spousal maintenanc e to Fr eda Ca rson. For the re asons that follow, we aff irm th e d ec ision of the district
c ourt
.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND

I n April 1998, Dr. Da

na Carson ( “Dr . Carson” ) and F reda Carson (“ Ms. Carson”) divorce d. The divorc e dec ree order ed Dr
. Carson t o pay Ms. Carson $2,300 per month for fiftee n y e ars a s e qu a lizatio n of pr op e rt y fr om the marr ia g e and $1 ,0 00 pe r month fo r fi ft e e n y e ars , o r u nti l Ms. Carson rema

rried, in spousal maintena nce. D r. Carson be g an the p aym en ts on May 1, 1998. The de cre e alloca

ted costs re lated to the childre n to both parents duringtheir possession. I n Septe mb e r

2 0 0 3 , th e p arti e s a g r e e d

to mo d if y c e rta in p r o v is io n s o f

th e d ivorce decr ee. T h e O r d e r

( “ 2 0 0 3 O r d e r ” ) r e qu ir e d

D r . Ca r s o nto p ay

$ 1 , 8 0 0 p e r

mo n th in c h il d s upport2

pa y me nts to M s. Cars on . T he 20 03 Orde r s tate d th a t a ll t e rm s o f p ri or or de rs no t sp e c if

ic a lly modified rema ined in f

ull f orce and eff

ect. I n October 2003 and for sever al months following, Dr
. Carson m ad e ch i l d support and prope rty equalization pay

ments to Ms. Carson, but did not pay spousal maintenanc e.

I n Jun e 20 04 , th e c ourt e nte re d an or de r in wh ic h th e pa rt ie s a g re e d to re du c e c hil d
su pp or t pa y me nts fr om $ 1, 80 0 to $1 ,5 00 pe r month be g inn ingJune 1, 20 04 . A lso in Jun e 20 04 , M s. Carson re marrie d, ending Dr. Car son’s obligation to pay spousal maintenanc e. I n Fe bruar

y 2005, Ms. Carson filed an e nforc ement ac tion ag ainst Dr. Carson f or fa ili ngto p ay

amou nts or de re d b y

th e fina l de c re e of

div or c e . In r e sp on se , D r. Cars on so ug ht t o clar ify the 1998 divorce decr ee a nd the 2003 Orde r, believingthat the 2003 Orde r eliminated spousal
ma int e na nc e . F oll ow inga

he ari ng , th e c ourt

fo un d th a t D r. Ca rso n was in a rr e ars wi th r e g ard

to proper ty equalization pay

ments in the amount of $12,000 and spousal maintena nce pa y ments in the amount of $9,000. Dr. Carson appea ls the court’s finding that he was in arre ars r eg ardingspousal maintenanc e.
AN AL YSI S

Dr. Car son appea ls in three issues. I n his first and sec ond issues, Dr. Carson c ontends that Ms. Carson waive d her r ight to the r emainingspousal maintenanc e pay ments as a result of he r
c on du c t f oll ow ingthe 20 03 Or de r a nd is n ow e sto pp e d fr om a sse rt inghe r r ig ht t o th os e pa y me nts
. I n his third issue, Dr. Carson conte nds that, beca use of a ccide nt or mutual mistake of the pa rties, the 2003 Orde r di d not ref

lect the parties’ intent to eliminate s pousal maintenanc e. He argues that, as
a re sult, the court should have g rante d his moti on to clarify the 2003 Orde r.3

Stan dard of Revie w

We reviewthe order t o enfor ce spousa l maintenance under a n abuse of

discretion standard. Se e Car lin v . Ca rli n , 92 S.W .3d 902, 905 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2002, no pet.). Unde r the abuse of discre tion standard, we will rever se the de cision of the lower court only

if it is found to have a cted without re fer ence to any g uiding r

ules or princ iples, or it is foun d to have a cted arbitra rily or unrea sonably
. Cire v. Cummings , 134 S.W. 3d 83 5, 83 9 (T e x. 20 04 ). I n ma kin g thi s de te rm inatio n, we wi ll e xami ne the e vid e nc e in a lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Vaughn v. Vaughn, No. 03-04-0030, 2005 Tex. App. L EXI S 3582, at *23 (Tex. App.—Austin, May 12, 2005, no pet.) (me m. op.); Tucker v . Tucker, 90 8 S .W .2 d 53 0, 53 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 1995 , w r it d e n ie d )
. I n an a b u s e o f d is c r e ti o n r e v ie w , le g a l an d f a c tu a l in s u f

f ic ie n c y are not i n d ep en d ent g rounds of e rror , but are rele vant fa ctors in an a ppellate c ourt’s dete rmination of whether the trial court abused i t s d iscretion. Do y le v . D oy le , 9 5 5 S. W. 2 d 4 7 8 , 4 7 9 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). Waiver of Spousal Main tenance

I n Dr. Carson’s first issue, he contends that the district c ourt abused its discr etion by fa ili ngto f

ind that Ms. Ca

rs on wa ive d h e r r ig ht t o th e re ma ini ngsp ou sa l ma int e na nc e pa y me nts be c a us e sh e did no t ob

je c t to his la c k of pe rf

or manc e or se e k pa

y me nts fo r s po us a l ma int e na nc e un til the Fe bruar

y 2005 action. Waiver is the “intentional re linquishm ent of a known right or intentional conduc t inconsistent with that right.” Jernigan v . Langley , 1 1 1 S
. W
. 3 d 1 5 3 , 1 5 6 (T ex . 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Sun Exploration &

Prod. Co. v. Benton , 728 S.W .2d 35, 37 (Tex. 1987)). I n order for implied waive r4

to be found throug h a par ty ’s ac tions, int ent must be clea rly shown throug h surroundingfac ts and circ umstances. Jernigan, 111 S.W .3d at 156-57. Implied waiver is applicable only

to preve nt fraud and inequitable c onsequenc es. See Sc hexnide r v. Scott &W hite Mem . Hosp., 953 S.W .2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.).

Ms. Carson waited nine months to pursue enfor ceme nt of her c laim while the par ties
wer e neg otiating other

matters, including t he custody of t he children. Ms. Carson t estified that the neg otiation s reg ardingthe custody of her oldest son cause d g reat “stress and c ommotion” to the parties, a nd that she wa s i n s i stent upon resolving the custody issue befor e spousal maintena nce. Wai ve r re qu ir e s an a c tua l in te nt t o r e lin qu ish the ri g ht, and

Dr . Ca rs on ’s c on te nti on , th a t Ms
. Cars on ’s int e nt t o r e lin qu ish he r s po us a l ma int e na

nc e pa y me nts c an b e inf

e rr e d f ro m he r f a ilure to raise the issue during neg otiations on other matters, does not satisfy this burden. Be cause Dr. Car son did not conclusively establish waiver

and the cour

t’s finding was not ag ainst the g reat weig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, the court did not abuse its discretion. Dr. Car son’s first issue is overr uled. Estoppel I n Dr. Car son ’s second issue, he conte nds that the district court abuse d its discretion when it fa iled to find that Ms. Carson was estopped from asser ting her right to the re maining spousa l maintenanc e pay

ments. Dr. C ar son contends that Ms. Carson purpose ly conce aled he r belief

that she wa s entitled to the rema ining spousal maintenanc e pay ments in order to obtain leve rag e on issues
conce rning custody

and child support. Dr. Carson further argues that he w as fr audulently induced,5

to his detriment, to neg otiate and se ttle the custody and child support is s u es b ef o re t he issue of spousal maintenanc e.

The elements of equitable estoppel are (1) a false r epre sentation or conc ealment of materia l fac ts; (2) made wit h knowledg e, actual or constructive, of those fac ts; (3) to a par

ty without knowledg e, or me ans of knowle dg e of those f acts; (4) with intention that it should be acted on; a nd (5) the party to whom it was made must have relied or acte d on it to his or her prejudice
. Johnson & Higgins, Inc. v. Kennec o Energy , 96 2 S.W. 2d 50 7, 51 5 (T e x. 19 98 ). Th e pa rt y ra isi ngthe de fe ns e of estoppel ha s the burden of proving all elements, a

nd the fa ilure to do so is fata l. Ad am s v . F irs t Nat’l Bank of Bells/Savoy , 154 S.W .3d 859, 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.).

Dr. Carson failed to provide suff icient evidenc e that Ms. Carson c oncea led mater ial information bec ause he had ac cess to the divorc e dec ree from which she obtained her r ight to spousal maintenanc e. F urther, D r. Carson did not conc lusively prove that Ms. Carson’s de la y in enforc ement was due to conce alment or fa lse repr esentation. As discussed ear lier, Ms. Carson testified that she decide d not to pursue her claim for spousal maintenanc e beca use the parties wer e neg otiating other matters, including the custody of the children, t hat s he believe d wer e more important. Ms. Carson timely pursued he r claim ag ainst Dr. Carson, and Dr. Carson does not now c laim that Ms. Carson’s claim is barr ed by

time limi tations. Be caus e D r. C ar s o nd i d

n o tco n cl u s i v el y

es t ab l i s ht h at M s . C arson was estopped f rom
asser ting he r cla im to the rema ining spousal maintenanc e pay ments, and the c ourt’s finding was not ag ainst the g reat w eig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e, the c ourt did not abuse its discretion. Dr. Car son’s second issue is ove rruled.6

Motion to Clari

fy I n Dr. Car son’s third issue, he conte nds that the district court a bused its discretion by failing to gr ant his motion t o clar ify the 2003 Orde r bec ause, by acc ident or mutual mistake of the parties, spousal maintena

nce w as not eliminated from the Or der a s the parties intende d. Dr. Car son maintains that it was the par tie s ’ i n t en t i o n while dra fting the Orde r to substitut e child support for spousal maintenanc e.

A consent decr ee is g overne d by the law of contra cts. Harve

y v. H arvey , 905 S.W .2d 760, 764 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no pet.). I ts me aning is to be construed first by the intent of the parties manifested in the written ag ree ment. Se e Gu lf I ns . Co . v . B ur

ns Mo tor s , 22 S.W .3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2000). Where ther e is no ambig uity in a consent decr ee or judgme nt, a trial court is without authority to modify it. See P earcy v. Pe arcy, 884 S.W .2d 512, 514 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994,
no wr it). A mutu a l mi sta ke e xists wh e n e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t bo th p art ie s a c te d und e r t he same misunderstandi n g o f a mater ial fac t. W illiams v. Glash, 789 S.W .2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990). The ob je c tiv e in re fo rm ing a c on tr a c t is to co rr e c t a mutua l mistake ma de in pr e pa ri ng the do c ume nt, so that it reflec ts the orig inal ag ree ment of the pa rties. Che r o ke e W

ater Co. v. Forderhause, 741 S.W. 2d 37 7, 37 9 ( Te x. 19 87 ); se e W alle rste in v . S

pir t , 8 S.W .3d 774, 781 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). The 2003 Or der pr ovided that the p ar t i es have “agree d to modify the Dec ree of Divorce with reg ar d to powers a nd duties of the par ents, possession, elimination of spousal
ma int e na nc e and c hil d s up po rt as he re ina

fte r se t fo rth .” (Emphasis added.) The Order stated that the terms of divorc e dec ree rema ined in eff ect if not e x pressly

modified by

the 2003 Or d er . The Orde r did not modify

the spousal maintenanc e provisions of the divorc e dec ree .7 At the hearing , Dr. Car son testified that both he and Ms. Car son intended to repla ce the s pousal maintenanc e pay ments with the child support pay ments. Howeve r, Ms. Carson disputed this te s ti mo n y , te s ti f

yin g th a t s h e n e v e r h e ld th a t b e li e f
. A lt h o u g h D r . Ca

r s o n c la im s th a t the langua g e e lim inatin g sp ou sa l ma int e na nc e wa s in a dv e rt e ntl y

omi tte d b e c a

us e of tim e pr e ssu

re s in draf ting the O rder , he did not file any timely motions t o chan ge o r co rr ec t the Orde r, nor did he appea l the Orde r.

Th e di st ri c t c ourt

a c te d w ith in i ts d isc re tio n w he n it de te rm ine d th a t, b e c a

us e bo th parties we re not opera

ting under the same misunderstanding when the 2003 Orde r was dra fted, ther e
was no mutual mistake
. Fur ther, the district c ourt acte d within its discretion when it f ound that the 2003 Orde r did not modify the divorce decr ee grantingspousal maintenanc e, and that it was not the intent of the par

ties to do so. Dr. Carson’s third issue is over ruled.
CO NC LU SION Be cause Dr. Car son failed to prove that the district court a bused its discretion, we aff irm its decision.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: June 30, 2005