in the Interest of C.H.C and S.M.C.
396 S.W.3d 33
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Parents divorced in 2004; 2006 order designated Mother sole managing conservator with education fund implications; 2006 order later modified Father’s support and ownership of education accounts; mediation on Feb 8, 2010 resolved several issues with Judge McCraw assigned to resolve remaining ones; Final Order (post-mediation) granted Father residence designation, Father’s weekly possession, and ordered Mother to pay $1,333.22 monthly child support, plus a $250,000 debt payable by Father; Judge McCraw later recused and Judge Sage took over remaining matters; Mother appeals asserting jurisdiction, changed-circumstances, MSP validity, deviation from MSP, and child-support evidence issues; appellate court reverses only the child-support portion and remands for determination of amount.
- The record shows mediation produced a binding MSP under Family Code 153.0071; the MSP provided for terms to be negotiated or decided by the court; the final order largely reflected mediator’s clarifications and the court’s rulings on unresolved items; issues concerning assignment of Judge McCraw and its effect on orders were contested, with rulings upholding the validity of the assignment and the orders signed after March 9, 2009; the court addressed arguments on consideration, mutual mistake, and lack of meeting of minds, concluding the MSP was enforceable.
- Public policy and litigation-deposit provisions in the MSP were challenged but held not to violate public policy; the court found the deposit was permissible and not a barrier to protecting children's best interests; the court concluded the final order did not vary material terms of the MSP in ways that invalidated it.
- The eight issues raised by Mother were grouped by the court into challenges to assignment authority, material change in circumstances, contract defenses, deviation from MSP, and child support; the court ultimately sustained Mother’s challenge to the $1,333.22 monthly child-support award and remanded for a new determination.
- The decision culminates in a partial reversal and remand, affirming the rest of the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of Judge McCraw’s assignment | No assignment order filed; McCraw assign for one day only | Assignment valid; record supports authority beyond March 9, 2009 | Orders valid; McCraw had authority to hear the underlying case |
| MSA changed-circumstances waiver | Waived requirement by signing MSP | Waiver evidenced by agreement and actions; no need to show traditional change | Waiver established; changed-circumstances requirement not satisfied |
| Mediated settlement agreement defenses | Lack of consideration, mutual mistake, lack of meeting of minds | MSA valid under Tex. Fam. Code §153.0071; defenses insufficient | MSA enforced; defenses rejected; no reversible error noted |
| Deviation from MSP | Final order altered terms (Stacy payment, education fund, parenting facilitator, deposit) | Some terms not enforceable against non-parties; mediator clarifications supported by record | No reversible deviation; ambiguities resolved; harmless error not shown |
| Child support evidence sufficiency | Mother’s income not proven; amount erroneous | Court could rely on net resources; order supported | Abuse of discretion; reverse to remand for proper determination of support amount |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Richardson, 252 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (assignment can be read to grant authority to hear case on its merits)
- Milner v. Milner, 360 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (consideration of MSAs under similar statutes; later affirmed by Texas Supreme Court)
- In re Cary, 2010 WL 3620466 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (mandamus related to assignment validity (referenced))
- Schlueter v. Carey, 112 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (parties not named in lawsuit cannot be bound by judgment)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (contract definiteness; open terms issue)
- Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Greenspoint Dodge of Hous., Inc., 297 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2009) (contract interpretation; ambiguity defined)
- In re J.C., 346 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (prior hearing testimony admissibility in subsequent proceeding)