Tony Woody v. Madelyn Woody
429 S.W.3d 792
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Tony and Madelyn Woody divorced by final decree on October 10, 2008; decree set child support and divided marital property (including awarding guns and mechanic equipment to Tony that were then in Madelyn’s possession).
- Post-decree disputes (beginning November 2010) involved child support amount after one child reached majority, unreimbursed medical expenses, and whether Tony received awarded property in Madelyn’s possession.
- Parties mediated child-support; mediator reported an agreement to keep Tony’s support at $771.73; no written signed MSA was filed. Tony later revoked consent and sought a reduction.
- Trial court’s Final Order: expressly approved the parties’ reported agreement to keep child support at $771.73, ordered Tony to reimburse Madelyn $3,383 for unreimbursed medical expenses, denied Tony’s enforcement motion, and awarded guns to the person in possession as of April 1, 2012.
- Tony appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) approving the child-support agreement after his revocation, (2) accepting flawed medical-expense evidence, (3) denying enforcement of property division, and (4) lacking jurisdiction to modify property division. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Tony's Argument | Madelyn's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could incorporate parties’ reported agreement on child support after Tony revoked consent | Tony: He revoked consent before judgment; court erred to approve agreement | Madelyn: Announcement in open court constituted a Rule 11 agreement enforceable by the court | Court: Reversed the child-support portion — Tony revoked consent before rendition; court erred to incorporate the agreement; remanded for further proceedings |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unreimbursed medical-expense award | Tony: Madelyn’s evidence was riddled with errors and factually insufficient | Madelyn: Presented itemized list, receipts, statements, and chart; testimony supported award | Court: Overruled Tony’s challenge — evidence and credibility determinations supported reimbursement of $3,383 |
| Denial of Tony’s motion to enforce property division (guns, auto equipment, computer equipment) | Tony: Strong evidence he did not receive items awarded to him; some items left on curb or threatened to be given away | Madelyn: Testified Tony received all items awarded; court free to credit her testimony | Court: Overruled Tony’s claim — he failed to identify specific items or prove entitlement by preponderance; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court modified/diverted from original property division (jurisdictional limit) | Tony: Court lacked jurisdiction to amend the decree by awarding guns to the person in possession on April 1, 2012 | Madelyn: Ruling addressed undivided marital property via post-divorce division, not a modification of the original decree | Court: Overruled Tony’s objection — ruling resolved post-divorce division of previously undivided property, not an impermissible modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (MSA signed cannot be revoked like other settlements)
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (court cannot render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at rendition)
- Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1983) (when court knows a party does not consent, it should not enter judgment enforcing agreement)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review will imply findings to support judgment when trial court issues no findings)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (standard for setting aside findings as against great weight and preponderance)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (factfinder is sole judge of credibility)
- Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (trial court retains jurisdiction to clarify/enforce property division but not to alter it)
- Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2003) (trial court cannot amend or change property division in final decree)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (appellate review deference to factfinder on credibility)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for proving entitlement where movant bears burden)