Hudson v. Aceves, 516 S.W.3d 529

Wife (Aceves) sued Hudson for divorce (2010); trial court entered temporary family-code orders including child support and exclusive possession of a Quintana Roo, Mexico home; parties litigated substantial related matters in Mexico.
Hudson moved to dismiss on forum/comity/joinder grounds; trial court denied and set trial. Aceves sought emergency temporary relief alleging Hudson used community funds to file proceedings in Mexico to deprive her of the Quintana Roo property.
At June 18–19, 2014 hearings the court heard evidence on interim attorney’s fees and other pretrial matters; counsel reported an in-court, on-the-record agreement (Rule 11) limiting Hudson’s future criminal actions in Mexico and requiring notice to the court.
On June 25 the court signed an order (over Hudson’s objection) broadly prohibiting Hudson from initiating or pursuing any criminal or civil proceedings in Mexico against Aceves without court notice/hearing. Hudson appealed as from a temporary injunction.
Appellate court held it lacked interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction under Family Code §6.507, treated Hudson’s brief as a mandamus petition, and conditionally granted mandamus: vacating the June 25 order and directing the trial court to enter an order conforming strictly to the June 19 Rule 11 terms (limited to criminal complaints and notice requirements).

Issue	Hudson's Argument	Aceves' Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction over the June 25 order	The order is a temporary injunction and therefore appealable under §51.014	Family Code §6.507 bars interlocutory appeals of temporary family-code orders	No interlocutory jurisdiction; §6.507 controls, so appeal treated as mandamus petition
Whether the June 25 order complied with the parties' Rule 11 agreement	Order exceeded the parties' on-the-record agreement (which limited only criminal prosecutions)	Court could enforce an in-chambers agreement; the order was proper	Order exceeded the agreed terms; court abused discretion by adding prohibitions not agreed to
Due process / evidence basis for the injunction	Order was unsupported because no hearing was held on Aceves’s emergency motions seeking injunctive relief	Evidence presented June 18 regarding Mexico litigation justified the order	Abused discretion: injunction entered without hearing on the specific emergency motions, violating due process
Adequacy of appellate remedy; availability of mandamus	Interlocutory appeal unavailable, so mandamus appropriate because injunction affects Hudson's ability to pursue important foreign proceedings	The order only requires notice and a hearing before further action, so it doesn't permanently deprive Hudson of rights	Mandamus appropriate: Hudson lacks adequate appellate remedy and would be substantially harmed; court conditionally granted relief

Cook v. Cook, 886 S.W.2d 888 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994) (construing family-code prohibition on interlocutory appeals to bar appeal of temporary order in divorce case)
Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus is appropriate when temporary family orders are not appealable)
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (court may treat an appeal as a petition for mandamus when appeal jurisdiction is lacking and appellant requests it)
Vickrey v. American Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1976) (agreed judgments must strictly comply with the parties’ agreement)