Gamboa v. Gamboa, 383 S.W.3d 263

Carl Gamboa and Patricia Gamboa filed a divorce action involving complicated division of a large marital estate with multiple trusts and business entities joined as parties.
Marco Gamboa, Carl's brother, served as trustee of the family trusts and the children were beneficiaries.
A jury trial occurred; the parties reached a partial settlement, and the jury was discharged; thereafter, court hearings continued and a final divorce judgment was entered and later amended.
Carl revoked his consent to the December 14, 2009 partial settlement on May 10, 2010; the stay and bankruptcy proceedings affected later hearings.
The trial court conducted a hearing on July 26, 2010 addressing revoke of consent, a declaratory judgment for Marco’s trustee status, child support, and attorney’s fees, culminating in an amended final judgment.
On appeal, Carl challenges the court’s enforcement of the partial settlement, trustee status, attorney ad litem, Patricia’s standing to sue the trusts, and related fee/indemnity provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did revocation occur before judgment?	Gamboa revoked consent before judgment.	Judgment rendered before revocation.	Revocation before judgment; error in enforcing partial settlement.
Did the court improperly add terms to the settlement?	Court-added assets, taxes, fees, and indemnities not agreed.	Terms implicitly encompassed in decree.	Not addressed; issue unnecessary to disposition.
Was Marco the trustee of the trusts?	Marco validly remained trustee; resignation circumstances unclear.	Marco resigned; Carl appointed himself.	Marco remained trustee; third issue overruled.
Was appointment of an attorney ad litem for the children proper?	Moot given children are now adults; ad litem necessary during minority.	Should have been appointed while minors.	Moot; issue overruled.
Did Patricia have standing to sue the trusts under the Texas Trust Code?	Patricia is an interested person with standing.	Patricia lacked standing.	Patricia had standing; issue overruled.

Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (rules for enforceability of Rule 11 settlements and need for written or in-court agreement)
Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1983) (withdrawn consent; enforcement requires breach claim)
Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996) (contract-like enforcement after withdrawal requires proper pleadings)
Staley v. Herblin, 188 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (enforcement of settlement requires pleadings when consent withdrawn)
Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984) (consent to judgment required at time of rendition)
Reppert v. Beasley, 943 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997) (judgment cannot be rendered when essential terms unresolved)