Choksi v. Choksi
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 09-19-00183-CV,09-19-00183-CV |
| Parties | ASIT CHOKSI, Appellant v. ULUPI CHOKSI, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Asit Choksi appeals the trial court's Final Decree of Divorce entered in the proceeding involving his wife, Ulupi Choksi.1 The trial court rendered the decree based on the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.602. Subsequently, the trial court denied Asit's motion for new trial.2
In three issues, Asit argues that the trial court erred by rendering a final divorce decree based on the parties' MSA because (1) he signed the MSA against his will due to the "looming threat of criminal prosecution," and an MSA procured by fraud, duress or coercion is unenforceable, (2) there was a mutual mistake of fact pertaining to his belief that he could transfer properties on behalf of Choksi, Ltd., and due to this mistaken belief, the MSA is unenforceable, and (3) certain provisions of the MSA are illegal and violate public policy.3 Ulupi filed a brief and moved to dismiss Asit's appeal, arguing he waived his right to appeal under the terms the parties reached in the MSA. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Asit and Ulupi married in 1981. Both parties are physicians, and they acquired extensive community assets, including real estate. Some of the real estate was held by Choksi, Ltd., a limited partnership in which Asit and Ulupi held a ninety-five percent interest. On August 17, 2017, Ulupi called police following an incident where Asit, while intoxicated, allegedly threatened her with a firearm. Police arrested Asit. Ultimately, he was charged with making a terroristic threat. Ulupi suedhim for divorce the following day. Asit, through counsel, asked Ulupi to mediate the issues in their divorce that were in dispute. Before the mediation, Ulupi's attorney attempted to confirm that Asit had the authority to convey the properties owned by the Choksi partnership. Asit's counsel contacted the mediator's office to facilitate the mediation, and the mediation occurred on July 23, 2018, ending with a signed MSA. Under the terms of the agreement, Asit agreed to transfer much of their real estate, including much of the property held by Choksi, Ltd., to Ulupi. He also agreed to sign the documents required to do so.
In bold and capital letters, the MSA provides:
AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THIS BINDING MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION AND IS NOT APPEALABLE. FURTHER, THE ATTORNEYS' SIGNATURES BELOW WERE AFFIXED AFTER THE PARTIES SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES.
Both parties signed the document, as did their attorneys. The MSA also states, "Each signatory to this Agreement has entered into the settlement freely and without duress after having consulted with professionals of his or her choice" and that the parties "signed voluntarily and with the advice and consent of counsel on the date set out below[.]" (Emphasis original.)
On November 13, 2018, Ulupi moved for entry of judgment based on the MSA. Asit responded to the motion for entry of judgment claiming that "disputes[ ] have arisen regarding the interpretation and/or performance of [the MSA]" and that they further needed to take the "necessary steps to complete the disposition of the remaining assets to be divided as set forth in the [MSA.]" In his response, Asit asked that the "Court refer this matter to arbitration pursuant to the agreed terms of the [MSA]" so the arbitrator could "approve[] all documents related to a final judgment on all issues." The parties then arbitrated to resolve any terms of the drafting disputes, and the arbitrator signed the proposed final decree to confirm he approved and that it conformed to the MSA. On February 14, 2019, Ulupi filed the arbitrator's approved decree with the court as a supplement to her motion for entry of judgment and again urged the trial court to enter judgment.
While the criminal charges were pending, Asit, an oncologist, lost his privileges to practice at several of the local hospitals. In the trial court and in his appeal, he claims the loss of his privileges has adversely affected his ability to make a living. During the evidentiary hearing on Ulopi's motion to enter judgment, Asit claimed he was forced to sign the agreement due to the looming threat presented by his indictment, which interfered with his ability to consider the advice he was given by his attorneys.
On February 14, 2019, Asit filed a supplemental response to Ulupi's motion to enter judgment. He asked the trial court to set aside the MSA, to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and to compel Ulupi's deposition, based on his claims alleginghe signed the MSA while under duress. He attached his declaration to the motion, claiming Ulupi falsely accused him of making terroristic threats. While Asit was released following his arrest, the trial court in his criminal case ordered that he not engage in any conduct that would "harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass Ulupi[.]" Asit further claimed Ulupi "used the continued threat of criminal prosecution against [him] to gain substantive advantage over [him] in the[] divorce proceedings[,]" but he did not specify how she did so. Asit claimed that to maintain his hospital privileges, he had to disclose whether he had ever been arrested, and during the course of the criminal case, Ulupi "directly caused [him] to lose [his] hospital privileges" at several local hospitals. He asserted "[u]pon information and belief[,]"Ulupi reported the fact he had been charged in a criminal case to the Texas Medical Board, a charge that threatened his ability to maintain his license. Boiling it down, Asit asserted in his declaration that when he signed the MSA, he felt he "had no choice[,]" he was not exercising free will when he signed it, and he was unable to evaluate whether to follow the advice he received from his lawyer.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing prior to entry of judgment. The evidence in the hearing shows that Asit was represented by two attorneys during the mediation. He communicated with the mediator and his attorneys but no others during the mediation. Asit testified in the hearing that he did not communicatedirectly with Ulupi or her legal counsel during the mediation, but he admitted that before the mediation, he drafted a letter that he asked Ulupi to sign. After the mediator revised the letter, he presented it to Ulupi and her attorney.
Ulupi also testified at the evidentiary hearing. She testified that shortly before Asit's arrest, she called 9-1-1 because she was scared. She explained that another physician was at her house who was also frightened by Asit's actions. The police came to the house and questioned her. According to Ulupi, neither she nor anyone at her request notified the Texas Medical Board or any hospitals about any matters that might have threatened Asit's credentials.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion for entry of judgment and signed the final divorce decree. Asit filed a motion for new trial, arguing he signed the MSA under duress and the property division was not "just and right." The trial court denied the motion and found as follows: (1) neither party claimed that the MSA failed to meet the requirements of Texas Family Code section 6.602(b); (2) the parties signed the MSA in July of 2018, and the first time Asit raised duress was almost seven months later, after he had requested arbitration per the MSA; (3) Asit delayed the proceedings by causing a lawsuit to be filed in Harris County, Texas that resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order being signed in that court on the basis that Asit then claimed he had no authority to enter into some of the property settlement agreements contained in the MSA, and after the HarrisCounty Court conducted a hearing on the temporary injunction and denied it, the Court set the competing motions for entry and motion to set aside the MSA for hearing; and (4) the evidence and arguments made at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to set aside the MSA did not support the requested relief, and it was correctly denied.
Whether a mediated settlement agreement complies with the Texas Family Code's requirements is a question of law reviewed de novo. Spiegel v. KLRU Endowment Fund, 228 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied); see also Crowson v. Crowson, No. 03-11-00795-CV, 2013 WL 6665022, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 13, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). "We review a trial court's decision not to set aside a mediated settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion." In re C.H., Jr., 298 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); see also In re Marriage of Atherton, No. 14-17-00601-CV, 2018 WL 6217624, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Crowson, 2013 WL 6665022, at *4. If there is some substantive, probative evidence to support the decision, a trial court does not abuse its discretion. Crowson, 2013 WL 6665022, at *4 (citations omitted). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v.Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985) (citations omitted).
In the present case, Asit argues in three issues that the MSA is unenforceable because (1) it was procured by threats of criminal prosecution against him, (2) it was the result of a mutual mistake, and (3) portions of the MSA call for relinquishing the right to sue third parties and interfere or require evidence relevant to Asit's criminal case to be destroyed.
A mediated settlement agreement (MSA) meeting certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial