in the Interest of C.C.E., a Child
530 S.W.3d 314
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Mother and father (divorced) executed an "Irrevocable Mediated Settlement Agreement" (MSA) after mediation to modify visitation and child support; the MSA was filed with the district court and stated in bold/capital letters it was "binding" and "not subject to revocation."
- The MSA included numerous custody/communication terms and a "Standstill Provision": "No child support increase shall be sought until December 2016."
- Parties filed an Agreed Motion to Modify and a proposed agreed order; both parties signed the proposed order. Before the court signed the order, the mother attempted to revoke consent to the MSA.
- The trial court held a hearing, signed the agreed order, found the MSA complied with Tex. Fam. Code §153.0071(d), and concluded prior family violence alleged by the mother was remote and insufficient to avoid enforcement.
- Mother moved for new trial arguing (1) the Standstill Provision is void as against public policy; (2) she could revoke consent because the agreement was "subject to the court’s approval"; and (3) she was not allowed to present evidence on the family-violence exception. Motion overruled by operation of law; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of Standstill Provision (child-support moratorium) | Standstill Provision is illegal and against public policy, so entire MSA is void and unenforceable | Even if the provision is illegal, it does not automatically void the entire MSA; trial court may enforce the remainder | Court presumed provision might be illegal but held that illegality of one provision does not necessarily render entire MSA void; mother waived detailed severability argument and MSA stands |
| Mootness of Standstill complaint | N/A — mother contends provision voids agreement | Father argued challenge is moot because the moratorium expired | Court held the complaint is not moot because if entire MSA is void there remains a live controversy; proceeded to merits |
| Right to revoke consent prior to court approval | "Subject to the court’s approval" language allowed revocation before the court signed the order | MSA meets §153.0071(d) (irrevocable mediated agreement), so consent cannot be revoked even before court signs | Court held §153.0071(d) makes compliant mediated agreements irrevocable; "subject to court’s approval" does not allow revocation |
| Opportunity to present family-violence evidence (§153.0071(e-1) exception) | Mother was prevented from presenting evidence supporting the family-violence exception | Father: record does not show denial or offer of evidence; no preservation of error | Court found no reporter’s record, no offer of proof, and no preserved complaint that evidence was excluded; issue not preserved and was overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1999) (mootness/advisory-opinion principles)
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (standard: trial court must generally render judgment on statutorily compliant MSAs; family-violence exception)
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (distinguishing mediated agreements from revocable unmediated settlements)
- Venture Cotton Coop. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. 2014) (severability and whether illegal provision voids whole contract)
- In re Circone, 122 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (compliant mediated settlement agreements are enforceable despite attempted revocation)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support determinations)