Court Opinion

ID: 9556130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 06:09:54.859958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.926113
License: Public Domain

Affirmed in part and Reversed and Remanded in part and Opinion Filed
August 8, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00049-CV

                  IN THE INTEREST OF D.G.M., A CHILD

               On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-02898

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Carlyle, Garcia, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Mother appeals the trial court’s final decree of divorce that grants both

Father’s requested relief at trial and the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG)

claims in intervention filed on behalf of the State of Texas relating to the parent–

child relationship. She raises one issue on appeal arguing the trial court erred when

it denied her motion to reconsider and motion for entry of judgment, because the

decree failed to comport with the parents’ partial mediated settlement agreement
(MSA), which addressed issues relating to the parent–child relationship.1 We

conclude the trial court erred with respect to the claims between the parents but not

with respect to the OAG’s intervening claims. The portions of the trial court’s final

decree of divorce granting the OAG’s intervening claims for child support, health

insurance, and medical support are affirmed. The remaining portions of the final

decree of divorce relating to the parent-child relationship that do not comply with

the terms of the parents’ MSA are reversed. In all other respects, the final decree of

divorce is affirmed. The case is remanded for the trial court to sign a final decree

consistent with this opinion.

                           I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        On February 12, 2019, Father filed his original petition for divorce. Mother

filed a general denial on May 15, 2019, but did not file a counterpetition for divorce

or other claims for affirmative relief. On August 27, 2019, the OAG filed a petition

in intervention, seeking the determination of parentage, child support, health

insurance, and medical support. See, e.g., TEX. FAM. CODE § 231.101(a).

        On February 23, 2021, Mother and Father signed a partial MSA with respect

to their agreements regarding the parent–child relationship. That same day, the MSA

signature page was filed with the clerk’s office, but the exhibit that contained the

terms of the agreement was not filed. The signature page states in underlined, capital

        1
          On appeal, Mother does not challenge the portions of the divorce decree dissolving her marriage
to Father or dividing the marital property.
                                                  –2–
letters that the MSA is not subject to revocation and it is signed by Father, Father’s

attorney, and Mother, who did not have an attorney. The OAG did not sign the

MSA.2 The signature page also states, in part, that “[t]he parties agree to appear in

court at the first available date to present evidence and secure rendition of the

judgment in accordance with this [MSA].”

         The MSA did not dispose of all issues relevant to the divorce proceeding, such

as the division of the marital estate or the intervenor’s affirmative claims. Five

months later, in July 2021, the case was tried before the court. Father appeared with

counsel, Mother appeared pro se, the OAG appeared and all announced ready for

trial.

         The OAG elicited testimony about each parent’s net resources and obligations

for guideline child support, as well as the fact that the child was receiving health

insurance through Medicaid. When the trial court asked for the OAG’s closing

argument, the OAG limited its requested relief to its intervening claims which

related to child support, health insurance, and medical support; not conservatorship

or possession.

         At the time of trial, Father lived in Texas and Mother lived in Louisiana.

During the trial, Father requested that Mother have standard visitation, not week on–

    2
       Based on the record, it does not appear that the OAG was present at the mediation or a party to the
partial MSA. Because the OAG was not a party to the agreement, its signature is not required for the MSA
to be binding as to the parents’ claims that were settled by the MSA. See In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 458
n.18 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding).
                                                  –3–
week off. Mother also testified that she did not want a week on–week off possession

schedule, because it was stressful for their child and she would like to find a better

alternative. As it turns out, these requests were inconsistent with the terms of the

parents’ MSA that had not yet been filed with the trial court.

      At one point during trial, there was an express discussion about agreements

between the parents. Mother testified that she and Father had “side agreements”

through email in 2019 about the exchange location, but she had not submitted the

emails as exhibits for trial. The trial judge told the parties that the best evidence of

an agreement is the writing, and that an agreement needs to be in writing. Although

Father’s attorney had signed the MSA five months earlier, she did not disclose to the

trial court that the parties had an agreement in writing. Ultimately, neither Father

nor Mother provided the complete MSA to the trial court or testified as to its terms.

      At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge took the matter under advisement.

The record contains an August 4, 2021, unsigned, written memorandum ruling that

states among other things the divorce is granted based on insupportability, each party

is awarded all property in his or her possession, the parents are appointed joint

managing conservators with Father having the exclusive right to establish the child’s

primary residence within Dallas and the contiguous counties and enroll the child in

school, Mother is awarded a standard possession schedule for parents residing more

than 100 miles of each other, and Mother is ordered to pay child support.

                                          –4–
       Mother retained counsel and, on September 9, 2021, filed a motion to

reconsider the portion of the trial court’s memorandum ruling relating to the parent–

child relationship and motion for entry of judgment. Attached to her motion was the

complete MSA, containing both the signature page and the attached exhibit

enumerating the terms of Mother’s and Father’s agreement. Among other things,

Mother and Father had agreed that they would be joint managing conservators, they

would have week on–week off access to their child, they would alternate holidays,

each parent would cover the child for health insurance on their own state’s Medicaid

program,3 neither parent would pay child support to the other parent, and the parties

would alternate claiming the child on their taxes. The trial court held a hearing on

Mother’s motion to reconsider and motion for entry of judgment, and filed an

unsigned, written memorandum ruling denying them. Mother did not request that

the record on appeal include, and the record on appeal does not contain, a reporter’s

record of that hearing.

       Mother filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel

the trial court to set aside its memorandum rulings and render a final divorce decree

that incorporated the parents’ MSA, which this Court denied because she had an

adequate remedy by appeal.             In re Montes, No. 05-21-00892-CV, 2021 WL

       3
         An applicant or recipient of Texas Medicaid must be a resident of Texas. 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§ 366.517.
                                               –5–
4785740, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 14, 2021, orig. proceeding [mand. denied])

(mem. op.).

      On October 19, 2021, the trial judge signed a final decree of divorce consistent

with its August 4, 2021, memorandum ruling, implicitly denying Mother’s motion

to reconsider and motion for entry of judgment. The OAG signed the final decree,

approving it as to form.

      Mother timely filed a motion for new trial that argued, in part, that the trial

court abused its discretion by failing to render judgment in accordance with the

binding MSA. Mother’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c).

      Mother timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law as

well as a notice of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court

did not file written, post-judgment findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although

the trial court did not provide the properly requested findings of fact and conclusions

of law, the September 29, 2021, unsigned, written memorandum ruling stated as

follows:

      All [motions] are denied.
      The MSA was indeed the agreement of the parties at the time it was
      reached and the parties and the [trial] court followed it. It was [Mother]
      who asked that it not be followed and said it wasn’t working at different
      points during the course of the litigation. Consequently, the parties
      attempted to settle with a second mediation which was unsuccessful.

                                         –6–
         All parties and their counsel, as well as the [trial] court were aware that
         the MSA would not work for a final settlement and nothing has
         changed.

         PARENTS CANNOT BE JMC4 WITH WEEK ON WEEK OFF
         PRIMARY DESIGNATION WHEN THEY LIVE IN SEPARATE
         STATES once a child begins school age.

         [Mother] wanted a final trial and put on evidence and testimony at the
         trial, requesting relief very different than that contained in the MSA. It
         is preposterous to this [trial] court that she would take any other
         position because throughout this case, she has reached agreements and
         then attempted to revoke them. Because [Mother] was representing
         herself, the [trial] court was keen to make sure a fair trial was held and
         that she was not forced into any agreements.
         Prior to the final trial, there had been three temporary hearings, two
         pretrial hearings, five hearing regarding the enforcement action against
         mother for possession violations and five final trial settings. This case
         had to be tried.

The memorandum ruling provides an explanation for the trial court’s ruling denying

Mother’s motion to reconsider and motion for entry of judgment, leaving no reason

for this Court to guess the basis for the trial court’s ruling. See In re A.E.J., No. 05-

20-00340-CV, 2020 WL 5107293, at *4–6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 2020, no

pet.) (mem. op.).

                    II. MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
         In her sole issue on appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred when it denied

her motion to reconsider and motion for entry of judgment. She contends the trial

judge signed a final decree of divorce that failed to comport with Mother’s and

Father’s MSA, which addressed all of the parents’ claims relating to their child.

   4
       In the context of the trial court’s ruling, “JMC” means Joint Managing Conservators.
                                                   –7–
Mother contends the MSA satisfies the statutory requirements, and the parents’

failure to request a judgment on the MSA during trial did not preclude her right to

judgment on the MSA. Further, Mother maintains there were no allegations pleaded

that would support setting aside the MSA. As a result, Mother argues that the parties

could not revoke their consent to the MSA, and the trial court could not refuse to

render a decree adopting the MSA. Mother does not address the portion of the trial

court’s decree granting the OAG’s intervening claims or how the parents’ MSA is

affected by them.

      Father responds that Mother is barred by the doctrine of quasi estoppel from

asserting her right to a divorce decree on the MSA because it is inconsistent with her

position at trial and works to Father’s detriment. Father also argues it would be

unconscionable to allow Mother to do so. In the alternative, he argues that Mother

is estopped from challenging the divorce decree under the doctrine of invited error.

      On appeal, the OAG’s argument is perplexing. The OAG filed a plea in

intervention, was a party to the litigation, and is an appellee in this appeal. However,

instead of filing an appellee’s brief arguing the trial court did not err when it signed

a decree in favor of the OAG on its intervening claims, the OAG filed an amicus

curiae brief. In that amicus curiae brief, the OAG takes a position contrary to the

relief it sought at trial. At trial, the OAG filed intervening claims seeking appropriate

orders for conservatorship, and current and retroactive child, medical, and dental

support. And the trial court found in favor of the OAG on its intervening claims.

                                          –8–
However, on appeal, the OAG’s amicus curiae brief does not acknowledge that it

was an intervenor at trial and, instead, argues the MSA, which included an agreement

that each parent would cover the child for health insurance on their own state’s

Medicaid program and neither parent would pay child support to the other parent,

should be enforced in its entirety.

                               A. Standard of Review
      A trial court abuses its discretion when its actions are arbitrary or

unreasonable, or when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles.

See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).

An appellate court presumes a trial judge acts within her discretion unless the record

demonstrates the contrary. Sahinalp v. Sahinalp, No. 05-03-00494-CV, 2004 WL

1201626, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 2, 2004, no pet.) ( mem. op.).

                                 B. Applicable Law
      Texas public policy encourages the peaceable resolution of disputes,

particularly disputes involving the parent–child relationship. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. §§ 152.002–.003; In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 449 (Tex. 2013)

(orig. proceeding); In re A.A.M., No. 05-18-01314-CV, 2020 WL 477109, at *2

(Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). In furtherance of that policy,

the parties may agree, or the trial court on its own motion may order, that a dispute

affecting the parent–child relationship be submitted to mediation. TEX. FAM. CODE

                                         –9–
ANN. § 153.0071(c); In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d at 449–50, 451; In re A.A.M., 2020 WL

477109, at *2; cf. FAM. § 6.602 (MSA in suit for dissolution of marriage).

      An MSA is binding on the parties if the agreement: (1) provides, in a

prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or capital letters or

underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; (2) is signed by each

party to the agreement; and (3) is signed by the party’s attorney, if any, who is

present at the time the agreement is signed. FAM. § 153.0071(d); In re Lee, 411

S.W.3d at 451–52, 458, 461. If an MSA meets these statutory formalities, it is

binding on the parties and requires the trial court to render a divorce decree that

adopts the parties’ agreement. See Highsmith v. Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d 771, 775–

76 (Tex. 2019). A party is entitled to judgment on the MSA notwithstanding Rule

11, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law. FAM. § 153.0071(e);

see also FAM. § 6.602 (party is entitled to judgment on MSA in suit for dissolution

of marriage notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another

rule of law). The trial court has discretion to provide clarification of provisions in

an MSA so long as it does not substantively alter them. In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d at

458 n.17.

      Texas law favors the strong enforceability of MSAs in family law cases, and

the defenses to the enforceability of an MSA have been strictly limited. Only two

narrow statutory exceptions allow a trial court to decline to render a judgment on an

                                        –10–
MSA, neither of which apply in this case.5 See TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.0071(e-1).

The Family Code does not authorize the trial court to substitute its judgment for the

MSA executed by the parties unless those statutory requirements are met. In re Lee,

411 S.W.3d at 453.             The Legislature was “absolutely clear” in limiting the

consideration of best interest to the findings in (e-1). Id.

        Section 153.0071 also does not permit the parties to an MSA to agree to set

aside the MSA. In re Minix, 543 S.W.3d 446, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2018, orig. proceeding). “To allow the parties to agree to set aside an irrevocable

MSA would render meaningless subsection (e), which provides that ‘a party is

entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement not withstanding Rule

11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law.’” Id.

        However, the rendition of judgment on an MSA is not automatic or a mere

formality. See Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d at 778. Due process requires that a party

receive notice of a hearing to enter judgment based on an MSA so that he may have

the opportunity to contest the MSA prior to the rendition of the judgment. Id.

    5
       Parties challenging the validity of a mediated settlement agreement may also be able to avail
themselves of applicable contract defenses such as illegality, fraud, duress, or coercion. See, e.g.,
Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d at 777 n.5; In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d at 635; In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d at 455 n.10; Milner
v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615, 619 (Tex. 2012); see also In re B.H., No. 05-19-00324-CV, 2019 WL 4254063,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 9, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Boyd v. Boyd, 67 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). However, in this case, none of the parties filed any pleading prior to the
entry of the decree raising any of these defenses or requesting the MSA be set aside, so this is not relevant
to our discussion.
                                                   –11–
   C. Mother is Entitled to Judgment on the Mediated Settlement Agreement
         As a preliminary matter, we note that the parties do not dispute that the MSA

meets the requirements of § 153.0071(d) as to the claims between the parents. The

MSA was attached to Mother’s motion to reconsider and motion for entry of

judgment, and it was referenced in her motion for new trial. Our review of the MSA

confirms that it meets the statutory requisites as to Mother and Father. There is

prominent notice on the first page of the MSA that it is not subject to revocation, the

MSA was signed by Mother and Father, and it was signed by Father’s attorney.6

Accordingly, we conclude the MSA complies with § 153.0071(d) of the Texas

Family Code, as to the parents’ claims. See FAM. § 153.0071(e).

         The MSA was not signed by the OAG , who requested relief relating to child

support, health insurance, and medical support, so the MSA is not a final and binding

resolution of the OAG’s affirmative, intervening claims. For example, the parents’

agreement between themselves that neither will pay child support does not bind the

trial court with respect to the OAG’s live pleadings to establish medical support.

The Family Code requires the trial court to order a parent to pay cash medical support

if the child is receiving government medical assistance. See id. § 154.182(b-2).

         At trial, both parents requested relief that differed from the terms of the MSA.

Neither parent complied with their agreement in the MSA “to appear in court at the

first available date to present evidence and secure rendition of the judgment in

   6
       Mother was not represented by legal counsel and did not have an attorney during the mediation.
                                                  –12–
accordance with this [MSA]” by failing to raise the matter during trial. Nevertheless,

§ 153.0071 does not permit Mother and Father to agree to set aside, revoke, or

rescind the MSA through any agreement that is not an MSA. See In re Minix, 543

S.W.3d at 452. Father argues that Mother’s behavior should allow the trial court to

render a decree that varies from the MSA based on various legal theories such as

quasi-estoppel, unconscionability, or invited error.       However, § 153.0071(e)

prohibits a trial court from using “another rule of law” to decline to render a

judgment on a mediated settlement agreement. Father contends that this outcome

would reward Mother for causing everyone to go through a contested trial by her

own inconsistent conduct. However, this ignores the fact that Father and his attorney

equally caused a contested trial when they hid the existence of the binding MSA

from the trial court. Our conclusion comports with the strong public policy of

promoting mediation to limit high-conflict custody disputes,7 because no party will

be incentivized to attempt to have a contested trial while hiding the existence of a

binding MSA.

        The trial court was understandably frustrated at the procedural headache and

unnecessary use of court resources caused by the parents’ actions in this case.

However, the trial court’s reasons for declining to render a decree adopting the terms

of the MSA do not comport with any exception allowed by law. Our record on

   7
       See In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d at 449-50.
                                              –13–
appeal does not show that either party filed any motion in the trial court challenging

the MSA or raising any permissible defense to its enforceability. Evidence that an

MSA has become unworkable is not grounds to set aside the MSA. 8 Accordingly,

the MSA is enforceable under § 153.0071, and the trial judge was required to render

a divorce decree that adopted the settlement terms between the parents contained in

their MSA. See FAM. § 153.0071(d); Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d at 775–76. As a result,

we conclude the trial court erred when it denied Mother’s motion to reconsider and

motion for entry of judgment as to the claims between the parents. However, we

also conclude the trial court did not err when it denied Mother’s motion to reconsider

and motion for entry of judgment with respect to the OAG’s intervening claims.

        Issue one is decided in favor of Mother with respect to the claims between the

parents and decided against Mother with respect to the OAG’s intervening claims.

                                      III. CONCLUSION
        The trial court erred when it denied Mother’s motion to reconsider and motion

for entry of judgment relating to the remaining claims between the parents in the suit

affecting parent-child relationship that were resolved by the parents’ MSA.

However, the trial court did not err to the extent it denied her motion to reconsider

    8
      The parties are not without recourse to address an unworkable agreement. For example, § 156.101
of the Texas Family Code provides that a trial court may modify an order if the circumstances have
materially and substantially changed since the date of the signing of a mediated settlement agreement on
which the order is based. FAM. § 156.101. As soon as a trial court signs a final judgment on the MSA, any
party may file a suit for modification if he or she believes that standard to be met.
                                                 –14–
and motion for entry of judgment with respect to the OAG’s intervening claims

relating to the parent–child relationship.

      The trial court’s final decree of divorce is affirmed in part and reversed in part

as follows:

      (1) The portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce granting the
          parents’ divorce and division of property are affirmed because they
          were not challenged on appeal. See McKnight v. McKnight, 543
          S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tex. 1976); Pollard v. Pollard, 316 S.W.3d 246,
          249 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (recognizing appellate
          courts have authority to affirm and sever issue of divorce while
          remanding property divisions and other issues).

      (2) The portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce granting the
          OAG’s intervening claims for child support, health insurance, and
          medical support are affirmed.

      (3) The remaining portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce
          relating to the parent-child relationship are reversed.

      The case is remanded to the trial court to sign a divorce decree that conforms

to Mother’s and Father’s MSA on all other matters affecting the parent-child

relationship that were agreed in the MSA.

                                             /Emily Miskel/
220049f.p05                                  EMILY MISKEL
                                             JUSTICE

                                         –15–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF D.G.M., A                   On Appeal from the 301st Judicial
CHILD                                          District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-02898.
No. 05-22-00049-CV                             Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
                                               Justices Carlyle and Garcia
                                               participating.

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s final
decree of divorce is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part as follows:

      (1) The portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce granting the
          divorce of SARABETH TAYLOR MONTES and JESUS
          MANUEL MONTES and division of their property are
          AFFIRMED.

      (2) The portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce granting the
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS’s
          intervening claims for child support, health insurance, and medical
          support are AFFIRMED.

      (3) The remaining portions of the trial court’s final decree of divorce
          relating to the parent-child relationship not addressed by the
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS’s
          intervening claims are REVERSED.

      In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

      We REMAND this cause to the trial court to sign a divorce decree that
conforms to SARABETH TAYLOR MONTES’s and JESUS MANUEL
MONTES’s partial Mediated Settlement Agreement with respect to all matters
                                        –16–
affecting the parent-child relationship that were agreed in the partial Mediated
Settlement Agreement and not addressed by the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF TEXAS’s intervening claims.

      It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 8th day of August 2023.

                                      –17–