Milstead v. Milstead, 1961
| Citation | 633 S.W.2d 347 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 1961,1961 |
| Parties | Earl R. MILSTEAD, Appellant, v. Joan Norton MILSTEAD, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Paul Dodson, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
J. Norman Thomas, Harris, Cook & Browning, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Before BISSETT, UTTER and KENNEDY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into in open court during a jury trial. Suit was filed by Joan Norton Milstead (hereinafter "the appellee") against Earl Ray Milstead (hereinafter "the appellant") and others, for the partition of property not divided in a 1979 Virginia divorce decree, and for other relief. Louise Hillbun, Roy Downer, and Mohammad Mojallali were also named as defendants but are not parties to this appeal. The appellant in his sole point of error contends that the trial court erred in rendering the judgment because "there was a lack of interest to an agreed judgment."
The record reflects that on November 17, 1980, the appellee filed her Third Amended Petition, naming the appellant and others as defendants. The petition alleged that the appellee and the appellant were married on May 14, 1960 in Darby, Pennsylvania. While residing in Texas, they acquired the seven tracts of land, the division or partition of which was the subject matter of this suit. Thereafter, on January 12, 1979, the appellee was granted a divorce from the appellant by a decree from a Virginia Court. The Virginia decree failed to divide the seven tracts of land in question, as well as the appellant's military retirement benefits. The petition also alleged that the appellant failed to pay the spousal support, child support, and attorney's fees ordered by the Virginia court in its decree.
The appellant and Louise Hillbun filed answers to the appellee's petition. Thereafter, on January 19, 1981, in open court the parties announced that they had reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement were dictated into the record. At the conclusion of the dictation of the settlement agreement, all parties stated, in open court, that they understood and agreed with the settlement. On March 23, 1981, the appellee filed a "Motion For Judgment" in which she requested the trial court to render the judgment attached thereto as "Exhibit A." However, the record before us in this appeal does not contain a copy of the "Exhibit A" referred to in the appellee's motion. On March 26, 1981, the appellant filed a "Motion for Judgment." The judgment proposed by the appellant conflicted with that of the appellee with respect to certain notes secured by liens on the subject property.
The record next indicates that on March 31, 1981, the trial court signed what purports to be an agreed judgment. Thereafter, on April 9, 1981, the appellant filed a motion entitled "Motion To Make The Transcript Of The Settlement Agreement Conform To The Truth And To Vacate The Judgment." In this motion, the appellant alleged that the judgment signed on March 31, 1981 was based on an incomplete transcript of the settlement agreement. He requested that the judgment be vacated, and that the judgment proposed by him be substituted therefor. Following a hearing, the court denied the appellant's motion and this appeal followed.
The appellant contends that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baylor College of Medicine v. Camberg
...agreement submit conflicting motions for entry of judgment, the trial court is on notice that mutual consent is lacking. Milstead v. Milstead, 633 S.W.2d 347, 348 Christi 1982, no writ). "The only effect of a party's withdrawal of consent to a Rule 11 settlement agreement, practically speak......
-
McCaskill v. McCaskill, 13-87-540-CV
...his consent to settle a case at any time before judgment is rendered. Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1951); Milstead v. Milstead, 633 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no In the present case, a letter attached as an exhibit to appellant's motion for new trial suggests......
-
Duncan v. Hershey, No. 13-06-00370-CV (Tex. App. 4/23/2009)
...submit conflicting motions for judgment, the trial court is put on notice that mutual consent of the parties is lacking. Milstead v. Milstead, 633 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1982, no writ). At that point, rather than granting one party's motion and denying the other, the cour......
-
McIlroy Bank & Trust v. Acro Corp.
...the consent of a party will be inoperative in its entirety. Overton v. Overton, 259 N.C. 31, 129 S.E.2d 593 (1963). Milstead v. Milstead, 633 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.1982), was a divorce case. During the trial the parties entered into a settlement in open court. Afterwards each party submitted ......