in Re Mercedes Martinez
14-15-00585-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 28, 2015Background
- 2013 divorce decree entered pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) between Hisham Ahmed and Mercedes Martinez.
- Martinez did not participate at the entry hearing; draft decree was prepared by Ahmed’s counsel and changes were requested by Martinez’s counsel.
- The decree was signed November 12, 2013 by Judge Bonnie Hellums; the trial court’s plenary power expired shortly thereafter.
- Martinez did not file a motion for new trial, an appeal, or a bill of review to challenge the decree.
- Ahmed filed enforcement actions to compel travel consent and Martinez sought a writ of mandamus to attack the decree.
- The court of appeals denied Martinez’s mandamus relief and upheld the validity of the decree seeking enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 divorce decree is void and subject to collateral attack. | Martinez contends the decree deviates from the MSA and lacks Martinez's consent. | Ahmed argues lack of Martinez’s consent does not render the decree void; consent is not jurisdictional. | No; lack of consent cannot render a valid decree void; collateral attack denied. |
| Whether the decree could be set aside after plenary power expired. | Martinez seeks to set aside the final decree years later. | Court lacks authority to alter a final decree after plenary power expired. | Court cannot vacate or void the decree; enforcement actions proper. |
| Whether the trial court failed to honor the mediated agreement based on Sec. 153.0071 Texas Family Code. | Martinez argues the court did not honor the MSA terms. | Court did not substitute its judgment; the decree reflected the MSA; issues should have been appealed. | The trial court did not substitute its judgment; the decree complied with the MSA. |
| Public policy favoring finality of judgments in family law. | Finality would prevent longstanding collateral challenges. | Finality serves stability; collateral attacks undermine enforcement and public policy. | Finality favored; collateral attack rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex., 2012) (void vs. voidable judgments and direct vs. collateral attacks)
- Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. 2009) (void vs. voidable judgments; direct attack required for voidable judgments)
- Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (distinguishes between void and voidable judgments and attacks)
- Brennan v. Greene, 154 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1941) (consent to judgments; collateral attacks improper)
- Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1951) (consent and agreed judgments; direct attack required)
- Sandoval v. Rattikin, 395 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1965) (final judgments; consent not jurisdictional)