Roberto Vazquez v. Maria Angelica Vazquez
13-15-00306-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Roberto and Angelica Vazquez mediated a divorce settlement (MSA) dividing community property; MSA stated it "IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION," was signed by parties and counsel, and complied with Tex. Fam. Code § 6.602.
- Under the MSA Roberto was to receive 66.248 acres (the Schulze property) contingent on his payment of $250,000 to Angelica; the MSA expressly made the agreement contingent on Roberto securing a loan to pay that $250,000 and stated that if he could not secure the loan the MSA would be "of no further force and effect."
- Roberto was unable to obtain the loan by the agreed date; he moved to set aside the MSA on that basis; Angelica moved to enforce the MSA and to have the Schulze property sold with $250,000 of proceeds paid to her.
- The trial court compelled production of Roberto’s loan files, later granted Angelica’s motion in part, and entered a final divorce decree ordering sale of the Schulze property and awarding Angelica $250,000 from the sale proceeds while otherwise incorporating the MSA.
- Roberto appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by entering a decree that modified and partially enforced an MSA that had become void by its own contingency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberto) | Defendant's Argument (Angelica) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the MSA comply with § 6.602? | MSA complied (bold nonrevocation, signed by parties and counsel). | MSA complied. | Held: MSA met § 6.602 requirements. |
| 2. Was the MSA void when Roberto failed to secure the loan? | The MSA was expressly contingent on loan; failure made it "of no further force and effect." | Angelica argued the court could divide property despite Roberto’s breach (no authority cited). | Held: MSA language controlled; failure to secure loan rendered MSA void per its terms. |
| 3. May the trial court modify an MSA that meets § 6.602? | Trial court lacked authority to vary provisions of a § 6.602 MSA. | Angelica contended court could redivide community property after breach. | Held: Trial court may not enter a judgment varying terms of a binding § 6.602 MSA. |
| 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by partially enforcing and modifying the MSA? | Yes; entering decree that enforced some terms and altered others (sale award) was an abuse. | Court’s remedy was permissible to achieve equitable division. | Held: Court abused its discretion; decree reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vickrey v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1976) (final judgment must strictly comply with settlement agreement)
- Garcia–Udall v. Udall, 141 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (trial court may not vary terms of a § 6.602 MSA)
- Boyd v. Boyd, 67 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (§ 6.602 provides enforcement shortcut for MSAs in divorce cases)
- Keim v. Anderson, 943 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (trial court may not add terms that significantly alter an MSA)
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (apply contract interpretation rules to mediated settlement agreements)