Kendren Leedy v. Brad Leedy
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 3190
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Kedren Leedy and Brad Leedy were married in 1996; Kedren filed for divorce in 2010.
- They tried remaining issues before an associate judge, including conservatorship and property division.
- On May–June 2011 the associate judge issued a rendition with Texcalibur ownership split 50/50 and ordered Kedren to draft the final order.
- Brad sought reconsideration of the Texcalibur valuation; Kedren moved for appraisal.
- On June 3, 2011 the parties signed a Rule 11 Agreement: Brad would get 100% of Texcalibur and Kedren would receive $125,000, with rendition to reflect the prior rendition.
- The Rule 11 Agreement was signed by the parties and the associate judge and filed; Kedren later moved to withdraw consent, and the final decree incorporating the Rule 11 was entered on July 21, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kedren is estopped from challenging the judgment due to acceptance of benefits. | Kedren contends voidness or exceptions to estoppel apply. | Brad shows Kedren accepted benefits and cannot challenge. | Estoppel applies; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether the Entitlement Exception applies to allow Kedren to appeal. | Entitlement to more than $125,000 is unquestionable. | Rule 11 did not fix value; remand could yield different results. | Entitlement Exception does not apply. |
| Whether the Cash Benefits Exception applies given the cash receipt. | Cash benefits could be accounted for on remand. | Not adequately briefed; no clear application. | Cash Benefits Exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1950) (estoppel limits challenge to benefits where rights are contingent)
- Tex. State Bank v. Amaro, 87 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2002) (acceptance of benefits may estop challenge to judgment)
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) ( Cash Benefits Exception analysis guidance)
- Gathe v. Gathe, 376 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (burden on appellant to show exception applies)
- In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (discussion of void judgments and estoppel)
- Demler v. Demler, 836 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992) (cash benefits remand considerations (discussed by Waite))
- Trevino v. Trevino, 555 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1977) (cash benefits impact on remand)
- Sprague v. Sprague, 363 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (bond considerations for supersedeas and estoppel)