in the Interest of M.L.R., 05-15-00647-CV

Background

Parties divorced after SAPCR proceedings involving custody of one child, property division, and a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) executed Dec. 22, 2014; final divorce decree signed Apr. 23, 2015.
Mother (Stacy Reed) appealed, complaining the trial court (1) entered a temporary child-support order; (2) denied her motions to vacate/abate the MSA without a hearing; and (3) entered a divorce decree that varied from the MSA and imposed overbroad injunctions.
A prior document titled “Final Judgment” dated Jan. 20, 2015 granted relief to a third‑party intervenor (Mother’s former attorneys) but did not dispose of Father’s pending counterclaims; court concluded that January order was not appeal‑final.
Trial court had signed a temporary order (Jan. 13, 2015) finding Mother noncompliant with MSA disclosures and ordering $1,000/month support; the April 23 final decree discharged prior temporary orders.
Mother filed a motion to vacate or abate the MSA on Jan. 8, 2015; Father moved to confirm Mother’s noncompliance and for temporary relief; hearing occurred Jan. 9, 2015 with apparent waiver of three‑day notice.
Mother did not raise timely, specific objections in the trial court on the contested points (notice, construction of MSA, differences between MSA and decree, or constitutionality of injunctions).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: Was Mother’s appeal timely despite a Jan. 20 “Final Judgment”?	Mother: Jan. 20 order only disposed of intervenor’s claims and was not final; appeal as to Apr. 23 decree is timely.	Father: Agrees Jan. 20 order was not final; appeal is timely.	Court: Jan. 20 judgment did not dispose of all claims/parties (Lehmann); appeal from Apr. 23 decree is timely — court has jurisdiction.
Temporary child support order: Was the January temporary order unsupported or erroneous?	Mother: MSA did not authorize support for non‑disclosure; evidence insufficient to show support was needed for child’s welfare.	Father: The challenge is moot because the final decree superseded temporary orders; alternatively, Mother failed to seek mandamus.	Court: Temporary orders were superseded by final decree and are moot; Mother failed to preserve the issue and could have sought mandamus.
Motion to vacate/abate MSA: Did the court err by denying and failing to hold a hearing and by waiving 3‑day notice?	Mother: Court waived Rule 21 three‑day notice, ruled without full evidentiary hearing; motion should be liberally construed as continuance; her motion meritorious on face.	Father: He waived the three‑day notice; Mother did not preserve notice objection or comply with continuance affidavit requirements.	Court: Mother failed to preserve complaints about notice and hearing; motion not a proper continuance (no affidavit); denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Divorce decree differing from MSA and injunctions: Did the decree improperly vary the MSA and impose unconstitutional speech restraints?	Mother: Decree substantially differs from MSA; injunctions are overbroad and unconstitutional.	Father: Mother waived complaints by not objecting to differences or challenging injunctions in trial court.	Court: Mother failed to preserve these objections; challenges to judgment substance and constitutionality waived; decree affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final judgment must dispose of every pending claim and party)
In re A.K., 487 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (temporary orders superseded by final order are moot)
Wright v. Wentzel, 749 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ) (temporary orders not reviewable once superseded)
Little v. Daggett, 858 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1993) (mandamus may be appropriate to challenge temporary orders in SAPCR)
In re A.D.A., 287 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (continuance affidavit requirement; failure to comply presumes no abuse)
Vickrey v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1976) (trial court cannot enter judgment that varies from a mediated settlement agreement)
Beyers v. Roberts, 199 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (judgment must not add or materially alter MSA terms)
In re C.S., 198 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (constitutional complaints must be raised in trial court to avoid waiver)
In re R.A., 417 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (objection for inadequate notice under Rules 21/21a must be preserved)