Shawn Lynn Hallsted v. Kevin Charles McGinnis
483 S.W.3d 72
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Shawn and Kevin executed an Agreement Incident to Divorce (AID) in March 2001, incorporated into their final divorce decree.
- Article 3 of the AID required Kevin to pay Shawn $2,500/month beginning April 1, 2001, plus specified additional alimony (10% of certain bonuses and periodic provision of a Cadillac Escalade).
- A "Term" clause in Article 3 states: "payments and obligations will end on January 1, 2014," but the parties disputed whether that term applied to all alimony payments or only to the additional vehicle-related obligations.
- Kevin stopped making the monthly payments in January 2010.
- Trial court entered a take-nothing judgment for Shawn after a bench trial; Shawn appealed claiming the trial court erred and raised a separate judicial-misconduct claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AID unambiguously terminates periodic alimony on Jan 1, 2014 | "Term" applies to both the monthly alimony and additional obligations; AID is unambiguous and ends 1/1/2014 | "Term" applies only to the additional alimony (indented paragraph); monthly payments are permanent | Court holds AID unambiguously ends payments on Jan 1, 2014; trial court erred in denying breach claim |
| Whether an agreement requiring lifetime or indefinite contractual alimony is unenforceable as against public policy | N/A (alternative: AID ends 2014) | If obligation were indefinite, public policy would bar enforcement | Court rejects public policy argument — parties may contract for support of any duration; such agreements are enforceable as contracts |
Key Cases Cited
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (standards for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency of evidence)
- Zenner v. Lone Star Striping & Paving, L.L.C., 371 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (bench-trial factual findings and sufficiency review)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (review of legal conclusions from bench trials)
- Ex parte Gorena, 595 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1980) (agreement incorporated in decree becomes part of judgment and enforceable)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract interpretation requires harmonizing the entire writing)
- Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (ambiguity and party intent principles)
- Dynegy Midstream Servs., Ltd. P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. 2009) (court decides contract ambiguity as a matter of law)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003) (ambiguity exists only if language supports two or more reasonable meanings)
- Allen v. Allen, 717 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. 1986) (parties may contract for post-divorce support; agreements governed by contract law)
- Francis v. Francis, 412 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1967) (court approval of support agreements does not invalidate them as alimony)
- McCullough v. McCullough, 212 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (marital property and alimony agreements incorporated into decrees are enforceable as contracts)
- Bruni v. Bruni, 924 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1996) (agreements for child support in decrees are enforceable as contracts)