Sudan v. Sudan
| Decision Date | 30 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-0921.,04-0921. |
| Citation | 199 S.W.3d 291 |
| Parties | Philip P. SUDAN, Jr., Petitioner, v. Margaret Dye SUDAN, now known as Maggie Mackenzie, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J.D. Bucky Allshouse, Houston, for petitioner.
Sheldon E. Richie, Katherine J. Walters, Jeffrey R. Cole, Richie & Gueringer, P.C., Austin, Ellen Elkins Grimes, Law Office of Ellen Elkins Grimes, Houston, for respondent.
In this suit to enforce a settlement agreement incorporated in a divorce decree, we consider whether there is any evidence that the ex-wife was coerced into relinquishing her rights to future alimony payments. The court of appeals reversed a summary judgment in favor of the ex-husband, concluding there was some evidence that the ex-wife was under economic duress when she gave up her rights. 145 S.W.3d 280, 288. We disagree that there is evidence of economic duress here and accordingly render judgment for the ex-husband.
Maggie Mackenzie (formerly Sudan) married Philip P. Sudan in 1978. The Sudans divorced in 1993, and Mackenzie was awarded custody of their two children. In lieu of child support, Sudan agreed to pay Mackenzie alimony until January 1, 2001, to maintain his life insurance on which she was the beneficiary, and to pay off her mortgage. Sudan agreed to pay the alimony in 20 monthly payments of $15,000 beginning May 1, 1993, followed by 12 monthly payments of $13,000, and concluding with 60 monthly payments of $12,000. This agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree.
After several years, Sudan threatened to quit paying the monthly alimony. After consulting with an accountant and with an attorney at the law firm where she worked, Mackenzie negotiated a final lump sum payment of $30,000. The parties thereafter signed an amendment to the settlement agreement, relieving Sudan of any future alimony obligation in exchange for the $30,000. Several months later, Mackenzie sued Sudan to rescind this amendment, and for breach of the settlement agreement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud in the inducement, tortious interference, non-payment of child support, and attorney's fees.
The trial court granted Sudan a partial summary judgment, disposing of all claims except those relating to child support and attorneys' fees. The summary judgment became final after the trial court severed the child support and attorney's fees claims, which remain pending in the trial court. Mackenzie appealed the summary judgment. The court of appeals, in a split decision, reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, concluding that the trial court had erred in dismissing Mackenzie's claims because there was evidence of economic duress. Id. at 288.
Sudan complains that there is no evidence of economic duress here. A motion for summary judgment must be granted if: (1) the moving party asserts that there is no evidence of one or more specified elements of a claim or defense on which the adverse p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pliskin v. Radians Wareham Holding, Inc. (In re Icpw Liquidation Corp.)
...this as a required element of duress. See Sudan v. Sudan , 145 S.W.3d 280, 286 n. 9 (Tex. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds , 199 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. 2006). The Sudan court could "find no Texas Supreme Court opinion recognizing [responsibility for a duress claimant's financial distress] as a ......
-
Salazar v. Collins
...favor of the nonmovant and resolving any doubts against the motion. See Goodyear Tire, 236 S.W.3d at 756 (citing Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex.2006) (per curiam); Spates, 186 S.W.3d at "[T]he existence of duty is a question of law for the court to decide from the facts surroundin......
-
Teal Trading & Dev., LP v. Champee Springs Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n
...of ReviewWe review a trial court's decision to grant no evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment de novo. Sudan v. Sudan , 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2006) ; Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett , 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). Whether reviewing a traditional or no evidence summar......
-
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP
...of one or more specified elements of a claim or defense on which the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial. Sudan v. Sudan , 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2006) ; see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). A nonmovant will defeat a no-evidence summary judgment motion if the nonmovant presents evi......