Court Opinion

ID: 9351914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 07:09:40.38246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:36.207587
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed December 28, 2022

                                               In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                      No. 05-22-00056-CV

                           LISA M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
                                       V.
                         ESEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
                                 Dallas County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-18425

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Rosenberg1
                                Opinion by Justice Nowell
         Appellant Lisa M. Rodriguez (Wife) appeals from the final divorce decree

entered on December 10, 2021. In four issues, she challenges whether a valid Rule

11 agreement was formed between her and appellee Esequiel Rodriguez, Jr.

(Husband) regarding the division of two pension plans and whether the trial court

abused its discretion by setting aside the stipulation without good cause. In a

separate issue, she contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her name

change request. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

   1
       The Hon. Barbara Rosenberg, Justice, Assigned
                                     Background

      Husband and Wife married on September 27, 1986. On August 23, 2016,

Husband filed an original petition for divorce based on insupportability. Wife filed

a general denial.

      For two years, the parties engaged in discovery and mediation. On May 8,

2019, they participated in a bench trial.

      At the beginning of the proceeding, the court asked if Husband and Wife had

reached any agreements. Wife stated the parties agreed “the pensions, both of them

respectively, will be divided with a 50 percent shared interest of the benefit as of the

date of divorce, and that is a 50 percent shared interest per each party as of the date

of divorce.” The court asked Husband if that was “your agreement,” and Husband’s

counsel responded, “Yes, that’s my understanding.” During the bench trial, Wife

again stated the parties made an agreement regarding the Bank of America and Time

Warner pensions; therefore, “We don’t need to go into those.” Instead, the parties

presented evidence regarding other assets, including other pension plans.

      The trial court issued a memorandum ruling on May 21, 2019. It granted,

among other things, the divorce based on insupportability and “accepted the

agreement of the parties to divide the Bank of America pension and the Time Warner

Cable pension fifty-fifty and renders judgment thereon.”

      On June 19, 2019, prior to entry of a final decree, Husband filed a “motion for

clarification of judge’s memorandum ruling dated May 21, 2019.” He argued, in

                                            –2–
relevant part, that he agreed to the division of the Bank of America and Time Warner

pension funds based on his belief he was getting a straight 50/50 split. He did not

realize Wife’s counsel “was using the term ‘shared interest of the benefit’ as words

of art contained within a QDRO.” He asked the court to clarify the agreement

because it put him at a disadvantage in receiving funds from the accounts. He also

asserted he “[did] not believe that was the court’s position to convey those funds on

less than an even 50/50 basis.”

      Wife filed a response and argued “the parties announced their agreement on

the record and the record is clear.” She asserted Husband’s attorney’s failure to

understand the consequences of the agreement was not a valid reason to change the

property division and was not subject to a clarification order because Husband was

seeking a correction, not a clarification. She emphasized Husband failed to object

to the agreement on May 8, 2019, and instead indicated his understanding of it in

open court.

      The trial court held a hearing on Husband’s motion to clarify on July 1, 2019.

Husband’s counsel again stated, “We didn’t think that when we agreed to a shared

account that it meant that we didn’t get our 50/50, but that is exactly what it means.”

The court acknowledged it could not necessarily correct the agreement but

understood the parties’ positions and wanted to see “the provision that would allow

the Court to change the parties’ agreement or to get into parol evidence of why you

made this agreement.”

                                         –3–
         Before the trial court ruled, Husband filed a “motion to modify, correct, or

reform judgment to comply with statutory and case law requirements for oral

agreements.” He urged there was no meeting of the minds on the issue of a shared

interest regarding the 50/50 division of the two pension plans; therefore, he

requested the court render judgment dividing the two pension plans 50/50 between

the parties. After a hearing, the trial court issued a memorandum on Husband’s

motion to modify, correct, or reform in which it “set[] aside the agreement of the

parties regarding the two retirement accounts in question.”

         Wife filed a motion for reconsideration. After a hearing on November 15,

2019, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration from the bench. The trial

judge indicated she did not believe the parties had a “meeting of the minds on this

situation at all, and so it messes up the whole deal.” The trial court ordered a new

trial.

         A second trial commenced on September 22, 2021. The trial court granted

the divorce based on insupportability and rendered judgment on October 26, 2021.

It further granted, among other things, Husband and Wife each a 50 percent separate

interest in the Bank of America and Time Warner pensions. The final decree of

divorce was entered on December 10, 2021. This appeal followed.

                        Agreement Regarding Pension Plans

         Wife raises the following issues regarding her Bank of America and Time

Warner pension plans: (1) Was a Rule 11 agreement formed? (2) Was mutual assent

                                          –4–
present between the parties? (3) Is Husband’s acontextual interpretation of “shared

interest” correct? and (4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by setting aside the

parties’ agreement and not identifying the appropriate standard or requiring Husband

to demonstrate good cause? Husband responds whether an agreement existed and

the terms of any alleged agreement are immaterial to this Court’s review because of

the procedural posture of the case and subsequent rulings by the trial court. We

agree with Husband.

      Our discussion here is controlled by one fact: the trial court granted a new

trial. Granting a new trial has the legal effect of vacating the original judgment and

returning the case to the trial docket as though there had been no previous trial or

hearing. Markowitz v. Markowitz, 118 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). “Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new trial,

the court essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Wilkins v. Methodist

Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). Once a new trial is granted,

the prior findings or rulings of the trial court are set aside and have no preclusive

effect. Estate of Wright, No. 09-18-00227-CV, 2020 WL 1173701, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont March 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

      After the trial court granted a new trial and denied Wife’s motion for

reconsideration, Wife did nothing further to challenge the trial court’s ruling.

Although Wife could not appeal the grant of a new trial, she was not left without a

potential remedy. See, e.g., Watson v. Moray, 133 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Tex. App.—

                                          –5–
Dallas 2004, no pet.) (“An order granting a motion for new trial is not an appealable

order.”).

       Her lawyers discussed extensively on the record whether to file a writ of

mandamus. Wife’s counsel acknowledged the “fastest and quickest and most

efficient way” to resolve the issue was to file a mandamus. Wife asked the court if

it would consider continuing the trial so “it will give me a sufficient time to file a

petition for writ of mandamus on the second floor so we can have this issue tested.”

The court answered, “Sure.” However, later in the hearing, Wife’s counsel indicated

they needed a new trial because “I don’t want to incur the extra expense of a

mandamus.” Wife’s attorney clarified the procedural posture of the case if she chose

not to file a mandamus. “I just want to make clear that if you have to do a new trial,

will the new trial be a complete new trial on everything?” and the court answered,

“Yes.”

       During the second trial, the previous alleged agreement between the parties

was never mentioned during the testimony regarding division of the pension funds.2

Wife never tried to admit it into evidence or object to the trial court’s failure to

consider it. To the extent Wife argues the trial court made it clear by its previous

rulings that it would not revisit the alleged agreement in the second trial, this did not

absolve Wife of her obligation to take some action to preserve the issue for appeal.

   2
     The prior agreement was mentioned during testimony regarding attorney’s fees, but such testimony
is immaterial for purposes of this appeal.
                                                –6–
We reject Wife’s invitation to address an issue she could have challenged through a

petition for writ of mandamus, but chose not to, and should have raised again during

the second trial after the trial court “essentially wipe[d] the slate clean and started]

over.” Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at 563. We overrule issues one, two, three, and four.

                           Restoration of Maiden Name

      Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her requested

name change and by failing to explain in the decree why it denied the request.

Husband responds the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Wife failed to

timely plead for the name change and provided no evidence of her former name.

      A trial court’s ruling on a name change is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard. In re Mayol, 137 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2004, no pet.). The test for an abuse of discretion is whether the trial court

acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles or whether it acted

arbitrarily or unreasonably. Id.; see also Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.,

701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).

      Wife relies on family code section 6.706(a), which provides that “[i]n a decree

of divorce or annulment, the court shall change the name of a party specifically

requesting the change to a name previously used by the party unless the court states

in the decree a reason for denying the name change.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 6.706(a). Because the statute mandates that the court “shall” change the name of

                                          –7–
the party unless the court states a reason for denying it in the decree, Wife argues

the trial court erred. We reject Wife’s argument.

      A judgment, absent issues tried by consent, must conform to the pleadings.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 301 (the judgment of the court “shall conform to the pleadings”); In

re P.M.G., 405 S.W.3d 406, 417 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). Relief,

therefore, may not be granted in the absence of pleadings to support that relief. Id.

(citing Cunningham v. Parkdale Bank, 660 S.W.2d 810, 813 (Tex. 1983)).

      Wife never filed a pleading requesting a name change. Rather, she first

requested a name change at the entry hearing of the final divorce decree, which

occurred almost three months after the second trial concluded and two months after

the trial court rendered judgment granting the divorce in its memorandum ruling.

Without a pleading requesting a name change, the trial court could not include such

unrequested relief in the judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 301.

      In an attempt to circumvent her pleading deficiency, Wife argues section

6.706(a) does not require a pleading to obtain relief because it refers to a party

“requesting” a name change as opposed to family code section 45.105(a) which

states the court shall enter a decree changing the name of a party “specifically

praying for the change.” Compare TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.706(a) with TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 45.105(a). Because she “requested” a name change, Wife contends

the trial court had a duty to comply with section 6.706(a) by including the reason for

denying her name change.

                                         –8–
         We disagree and need not decide the significance, if any, of the difference in

the statutory language of these two sections. By waiting until months after the close

of evidence at trial and outside the deadline to file a trial amendment, Wife did not

invoke the trial court’s duties under section 6.706(a). Moreover, Wife did not

present any evidence of her former name. She merely stated she wanted her name

changed to Lisa Elayna Mendiola. Under these facts, we cannot conclude the trial

court acted outside its broad discretion.3 See Mayol, 137 S.W.3d at 105; see also

Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241–42.

         In reaching this conclusion, we reject Wife’s argument she has suffered harm.

Wife may still file a petition with the court requesting a name change. See TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 (“An adult may file a petition requesting a change of

name in the county of the adult’s place of residence.”). We overrule appellant’s fifth

issue.

                                              Conclusion

         We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

220056f.p05                                            /Erin A. Nowell//
                                                       ERIN A. NOWELL
                                                       JUSTICE

    3
      Other than Wife stating at the entry hearing that “she’s requesting that her name change to Lisa Elayna
Mendiola,” there is no indication of whether she was seeking relief under section 6.706(a) or section
45.105(a). When Husband objected that “they’ve never pled for it,” Wife made no argument as to whether
a pleading was necessary.
                                                    –9–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

LISA M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 301st Judicial
                                               District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00056-CV           V.                Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-18425.
                                               Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
ESEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ, JR.,                       Justices Partida-Kipness and
Appellee                                       Rosenberg participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

       It is ORDERED that appellee ESEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ, JR. recover his
costs of this appeal from appellant LISA M. RODRIGUEZ.

Judgment entered this 28th day of December 2022.

                                        –10–