in Re: Sharon Lauriette
05-15-00518-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 20, 2015Background
- Sharon and Samy Lauriette signed a February 10, 2014 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) resolving property, custody, and a $7,500/month spousal-maintenance payment for 72 months.
- The MSA stated alimony "shall terminate only if Father becomes the Sole Managing Conservator under the conditions set forth in paragraph 3" and also required the Decree to be prepared consistently with Texas Family Law Practice Manual (TFLPM) forms.
- Parties disputed whether the payments would terminate on Sharon’s death because the signed MSA omitted language from earlier drafts that expressly said payments would not terminate on her death. The tax treatment depends on whether payments cease at death.
- The parties mediated the tax/death issue but could not agree; each submitted competing proposed decrees and Samy moved to vacate/set aside the MSA. The trial court found an ambiguity it "could not resolve" and granted Samy’s motion to set aside the MSA.
- Sharon sought mandamus relief, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a binding MSA under Tex. Fam. Code §6.602. The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order setting aside the MSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lauriette) | Defendant's Argument (Lauriette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may set aside a §6.602 mediated settlement agreement because of an ambiguity about tax consequences/death clause | The MSA is binding and the trial court erred in setting it aside; any ambiguity is for the trial court to resolve without vacating the agreement | The ambiguity and the MSA’s mediation clause required the court to set aside the agreement and send the parties back to mediation or restart litigation | Trial court abused its discretion: an ambiguity does not authorize setting aside a §6.602 MSA; mediation clause does not remove the court as trier of fact when mediation fails |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate (i.e., appeal is inadequate) to correct the trial court’s order | Immediate enforcement is necessary to preserve benefits of a mediated settlement and avoid the expense and delay of relitigation; mandamus is proper | Error could be corrected on appeal | Mandamus appropriate: appeal inadequate because waiting would deprive parties of the MSA’s immediate enforceability; writ conditionally granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (ambiguity in MSA must be resolved by appropriate trier of fact; ambiguity alone does not authorize setting aside MSA)
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (mandamus available to compel enforcement of mediated settlement agreements)
- In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2009) (standard for mandamus: clear abuse of discretion and inadequacy of appellate remedy)
- Garcia-Udall v. Udall, 141 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (trial court may refuse to enforce illegal provisions in an MSA)
- Cayan v. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (public policy supports immediate enforceability of mediated settlements to reduce litigation)
- Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996) (mandamus to correct erroneous refusal to enforce mediated settlement)