In re Marriage of Rizvi & Khaja

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CLARISSA SILVA, JUSTICE
• Docket Number: 13-24-00069-CV
• Decision Date: 30 December 2025
• Citation: In re Marriage of Rizvi & Khaja, 13-24-00069-CV (Tex. App. Dec 30, 2025)
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SABA A. RIZVI AND MASI KHAJA AND IN THE INTEREST OF D.K. AND A.K., CHILDREN

1

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SABA A. RIZVI AND MASI KHAJA AND IN THE INTEREST OF D.K. AND A.K., CHILDREN

No. 13-24-00069-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

December 30, 2025

ON APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CLARISSA SILVA, JUSTICE

Appellant Masi Khaja appeals from the trial court's entry of a final decree of divorce from appellee Saba A Rizvi.^[1] By two issues, Khaja argues that the trial court erred by (1) signing a judgment that failed to conform with the parties' settlement agreement and (2) denying his motion to reopen the evidence. We affirm in part and reverse and render in part.

I. Background

Khaja and Rizvi were married and had two minor children. Rizvi filed for divorce in 2021. Prior to trial, the parties reached a partial mediated settlement agreement on some child-related issues. On July 17, 2023, the parties proceeded to a bench trial on the remaining child-related issues and certain property issues concerning their marital estate. They owned several businesses in Colorado, including a majority share in DRK Associates, LLC (DRK Associates). During trial, Khaja and Rizvi presented expert witnesses who testified as to the value of the business assets. Rizvi's counsel also asked Khaja about the parties' ownership interest in DRK Associates, "So according to this P-63, right now, [Rizvi] has a 40 percent interest, whether it's separate or community; you have a 40 percent interest; [Dale] Beede has a 10 percent; and your brother, Mr. Khaja, has a 10 percent interest, correct?" Khaja responded, "Yes."^[2] Khaja and Rizvi each requested award of the remaining ownership interest in DRK Associates. On the third day of trial, the parties announced they had reached an agreement on the remaining child-related issues and property issues. The parties further announced that they would like to attend mediation on the issues related to the transfer of DRK Associates. Rizvi's counsel elicited the following testimony in open court from Rizvi concerning the parties' agreement and the specific issues that would be mediated:

[Rizvi's counsel]: [P]er the terms of the spreadsheet that's attached to [Joint Exhibit 1], the gist of it is that you're awarded [DRK Associates]. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And that's an 80 percent interest. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And then you're awarded the marital residence. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And then . . . each of you is taking your own debts or assets. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And at the end, . . . there's an approximate $252,000 note that you will pay to [Khaja]. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And we are going to go to mediation to determine how to address the security for that. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And you agree that the note will either be secured by the house or the interest in DRK Associates. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And then [Khaja] is going to . . . communicate with the bank in transferring the . . . shares in DRK Associates to you. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And you have agreed to refinance the marital residence within 24 months and provide notification to [Khaja]. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

. . . .

[Rizvi's counsel]: Now, one of the things that we didn't have time to address today-but you're going to go to mediation to address-details regarding the securities, indemnities, protections, and documents in you assuming DRK Associates. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Yes.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And we're asking that if we can't agree on all forms that we [would] be allowed to reappear before Judge . . . to address the form of those documents. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And then the parties will direct [Beede] to continue to run the day-to-day operations of the company and to pay expenses for the company but only company expenses as they become due. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And no other distributions or payments to be made after today. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Correct.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And then [Khaja] will turn over the checks and payment instruments in his possession within three business days. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Yes.

. . . .

[Rizvi's counsel]: So we [have] had significant discussion-you understand that in taking on DRK Associates, we talked about the risks, and you're safe assuming those risks and taking on that asset. Correct?

[Rizvi]: Yes.

[Rizvi's counsel]: And are you asking the [trial c]ourt to approve your agreement and grant your divorce?

[Rizvi]: Yes, sir. Khaja's counsel agreed and the following exchange occurred:

[Khaja's counsel]: [Khaja], did you hear-or did you see the terms that we agreed to that we looked at in [Joint Exhibit 1]?

[Khaja]: Yes, I did.

. . . .

[Khaja's counsel]: And as it relates to the property division that was in [Joint Exhibit 1] we looked at earlier that's now been marked, do you think that's a just and right division of the community estate?

[Khaja]: Yes, I do.

[Khaja's counsel]: And are you asking the [trial c]ourt to finalize a divorce consistent with those terms and to pronounce the divorce effective today?

[Khaja]: Yes, I do.

. . . .

THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to [send the] parties to mediation re[garding] security-

. . . .

[Rizvi's counsel]: Securities, indemnities, protections, and documents in [Rizvi] assuming DRK [Associates] . . . .

The parties also admitted "Joint Exhibit 1," which was an email sent by Rizvi's counsel to Kimberly Edgington, a paralegal at the firm representing Rizvi. The email stated in part: "The parties shall attend mediation to address the details regarding securities, indemnities, protections and documents in [Rizvi] assuming DRK [Associates]." The email further stated:

The parties agree that if they cannot agree on the terms of the note they shall re-appear before Judge . . . to address that dispute. Parties to direct [Beede] to continue to run the day-to-day operations of the company and to pay expenses for the company for only company expenses as they become due. No other distributions/payments to be made. [Khaja] to turn over all checks/payment instruments within three business days.

The email was not signed by either Khaja or Rizvi, nor was it signed by their respective attorneys.

On November 3, 2023, Khaja filed a "Motion to Sign," requesting the trial court to sign the proposed final decree of divorce "attached to [his] petition." On November 8, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on said motion. On the same day but before the hearing, Khaja filed his "Amended Motion to Sign and Motion to Reopen the Evidence." During the hearing, Khaja argued the evidence should be reopened to address his concerns of whether Rizvi would have to refinance DRK Associates and his motion was denied. The trial court and the parties also specifically discussed in open court what terms should be included in the final decree of divorce at the hearing. Rizvi objected to specific language in Khaja's proposed decree that restricted the distributions related to DRK Associates on the basis that such language was inconsistent with the parties' Rule 11 agreement. The trial court agreed with Rizvi and entered a final decree of divorce without the language. There was no further clarification by either party regarding the distributions.

The final decree of divorce stated, in pertinent part, the following:

As of the Effective Date[:] (i) [Khaja] hereby conveys, assigns, and/or transfers to Rizvi all of [Khaja]'s right, title, and interest in and to his membership interests and/or membership units in [DRK Associates], which is forty percent (40%) of the ownership interest in [DRK Associates], or 80 total units, free and clear of all encumbrances (other than any lien or encumbrance that may exist[] against these membership interests and/or membership units as a result of financing through the Bank of Colorado, loan numbers x8503, x8504[,] and x0805 and restrictions on subsequent transfers under applicable securities laws or other legal requirements); (ii) [Khaja] hereby agrees to fully withdraw as a Member of [DRK Associates] and resign as Manager of [DRK Associates;] (iii) Rizvi hereby accepts the transfer, assignment, and/or conveyance of all of [Khaja]'s right, title, and interest in, as well as any debt and other obligations, related to his membership interests and/or membership units in [DRK Associates] (the membership interests and/or membership units in [DRK Associates] that [Khaja] is hereby transferring, assigning, and/or conveying to Rizvi is hereinafter referred to as "the Assigned Interest"); and (iv) pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Second Amended Operating Agreement, Rizvi is hereby appointed as, and she accepts the appointment of, Manager of [DRK Associates].

The agreed final decree of divorce was signed on November 15, 2023, and did not include any information regarding distributions from DRK Associates. This appeal ensued.

II. Divorce Decree

Khaja first argues that the trial court erred by signing a decree of divorce that contained terms not agreed to by the parties. He specifically contends that the trial court erroneously signed the final decree of divorce regarding DRK Associates "[b]ecause the [trial c]ourt signed [Rizvi]'s version of the decree that included a corporate assignment with no restriction on distributions."

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

We review a trial court's division of property under an abuse of discretion standard. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw 555 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tex. 2018). A trial court has wide discretion in making a just and right...