Amber Raquel Emerson v. Thomas Chad Emerson, 559 S.W.3d 727

Amber and Thomas Emerson divorced in 2009; divorce decree required Thomas to pay Amber $31,055.
In 2015 Amber moved to enforce/clarify the decree, seeking the $31,055 (with postjudgment interest), an owelty lien, and attorney’s fees.
At the scheduled enforcement trial the parties reached a Rule 11 settlement on the record: Thomas would refinance, funds from closing deposited in the court registry, Amber would release a lis pendens, the court would decide attorney’s fees and any postjudgment interest, and the parties agreed to reciprocal waivers of appellate rights regarding those rulings.
The trial court entered a final judgment dividing registry funds, denied Amber attorney’s fees and interest, and ordered certain records sealed; Amber filed a motion for new trial and then appealed.
Thomas moved to dismiss parts of the appeal based on the on-the-record Rule 11 waiver; the court considered enforceability, duress/public-policy challenges, briefing waiver, and whether Rule 76a applied to the sealing order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amber)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Enforceability of on-the-record Rule 11 waiver of appellate rights	Amber says she did not validly waive appellate rights (coerced/dictated by judge) and waiver violates public policy	Thomas argues the parties expressly agreed on the record to waive appellate rights as to attorney’s fees and interest; agreement is enforceable under Rule 11	Waiver enforceable as to attorney’s fees and interest; those parts of appeal dismissed
Duress / coercion in obtaining Rule 11 agreement	Judge pressured Amber into agreeing; waiver not voluntary	Waiver was made knowingly after consultation; no evidence of threats or destroyed free will	No duress; record shows Amber consulted counsel and knowingly consented
Necessity of defendant pleading breach or filing cross-appeal to enforce waiver	Amber argues Thomas waived right to enforce waiver by not filing cross-appeal or alleging breach below	Thomas contends enforcement may be sought on appeal without cross-appeal or amended pleadings	Thomas need not have amended pleadings or cross-appealed; may seek dismissal under the Rule 11 waiver
Applicability of Rule 76a to sealing order	Amber contends sealing violated Rule 76a procedures	Thomas contends Rule 76a excludes records from actions originally arising under the Family Code	Rule 76a does not apply to Family Code-origin actions; sealing order upheld

Ronin v. Lerner, 7 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (transcript of on-the-record statements can establish a Rule 11 agreement)
McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (duress requires proof that a threat destroyed free agency)
In re Long, 946 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997) (party need not file a cross-appeal or amend pleadings to seek enforcement of an on-the-record settlement)
Holloway v. Holloway, 792 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (courts should enforce voluntary settlements; public-policy challenge to settlement must be supported by record)
Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (standard for imposing appellate sanctions for frivolous appeals)