In Re Mah
365 S.W.3d 814
Tex. App.2012Background
- Mother and father of three minor children; parties negotiated a Rule 11 agreement concerning property, spousal maintenance, and conservatorship/child support without counsel present.
- Rule 11 agreement drafted to reflect an unequal property division in favor of father and exclusive designation of primary residence to father; agreement stated not subject to revocation.
- Appellee filed counterclaim to enforce Rule 11; trial court signed final judgment incorporating the agreement.
- Appellant later withdrew consent to the agreement; the judgment on divorce and related orders remained in place.
- Appellant challenged on appeal the enforcement of the agreement on child support, conservatorship, and possession after revocation; estoppel by acceptance of benefits raised in defense.
- The court affirmed divorce but remanded for reconsideration of the property division and related matters, clarifying enforcement limits post-withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could enter judgment on the Rule 11 agreement after withdrawal of consent | Appellant asserts consent was revoked; judgment enforcing the agreement is void | Appellee contends the agreement remained enforceable as to dissolution of marriage | Judgment on the Rule 11 agreement as to child support/conservatorship/possession is void; remand for reconsideration of property division |
| Whether the trial court properly enforced child-support, conservatorship, and possession terms after revocation | No agreement remained; court cannot order accordingly | Court should enforce if the agreement was binding on those terms | Court erred in enforcing those terms; need new orders reflecting revocation and potential revised agreement |
| Whether estoppel by acceptance of benefits bars appellant’s appeal | Appellant accepted benefits under economic duress; estoppel does not apply | Appellee bears burden to prove estoppel by acceptance | Appellee failed to establish estoppel; appeal may proceed |
| Remand to determine if the marital estate division remains just and right after revocation | Division may require revision if agreement not just and right | If justified, court may enforce; otherwise revise | Remanded for trial court to determine whether the property division remains just and right; may require revised agreement or contested hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1950) (estoppel by acceptance principles in judgments)
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.-Hou. [14th Dist.] 2004) (estoppel by acceptance of benefits in divorce cases)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (judgment on settlement when consent revoked; breach theories)
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (breach/enforcement of agreement post-consent)
- S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.1995) (voidness of revoked Rule 11 judgments)
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.2012) (mediated settlement irrelevance; irrevocability considerations)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 665 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.1984) (ends of justice on remand for property division)
- Lifshutz v. Lifshutz, 61 S.W.3d 511 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001) (remanded proceedings when issues depend on trial court determinations)