Woody v. Woody

• Decision Date: 08 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 14–12–00762–CV.,14–12–00762–CV.
• Citation: 429 S.W.3d 792
• Parties: Tony WOODY, Appellant v. Madelyn WOODY, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

429 S.W.3d 792

Tony WOODY, Appellant

v.Madelyn WOODY, Appellee.

No. 14–12–00762–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

April 17, 2014.

Rehearing Overruled May 8, 2014.

Emily Foster, Pikesville, MD, Daniel Jake Lemkuil, Houston, Tony Woody, League City, for Appellant.

Elsie Martin–Simon, Houston, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Chief Justice FROST and Justices BOYCE and JAMISON.

OPINION

MARTHA HILL JAMISON, Justice.

Appellant Tony Woody and appellee Madelyn Woody each filed post-divorce pleadings seeking enforcement and modification of their final decree of divorce. After a series of trial proceedings on the issues presented in these motions, the trial court entered judgment ordering Tony to pay $771.73 per month in child support and to reimburse Madelyn $3,383.00 in medical expenses, and denying Tony's motion for enforcement. The court further awarded certain property items to the person in possession of them as of a certain date.

In his first three issues on appeal, Tony contends that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) approving in the judgment the parties' agreement on child support after Tony had revoked his consent, (2) accepting Madelyn's evidence regarding unreimbursed medical expenses when it was “riddled with errors,” and (3) denying Tony's motion to enforce the division of property despite “strong evidence supporting his property claim.” In his fourth issue, Tony contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the division of property. Among other arguments in response, Madelyn asserts that Tony's appeal is frivolous. We affirm the trial court's judgment in part and reverse and remand in part. We further hold that Tony's appeal was not frivolous.

Background

The trial court entered a final decree of divorce dissolving Tony and Madelyn's marriage on October 10, 2008. In the decree, among other things, the court ordered Tony to pay child support for their two children, initially at $964.66 per month, and after one child obtained certain milestones, such as graduating from high school and turning eighteen years of age, at $771.73 per month. The decree also contains fairly complex provisions regarding payment for insurance and medical expenses. The parties agree, however, that Tony was required to reimburse Madelyn for half of the medical expenses she incurred on behalf of the children that were not covered by insurance. Additionally, the court divided the parties' marital estate. As particularly relevant to our analysis, the court awarded Tony the guns and auto mechanic equipment then in Madelyn's possession.

Beginning in November 2010, the parties filed a series of post-decree motions and petitions. As will be discussed in more detail below, among the issues raised in these pleadings were the amount of child support Tony should pay, additional reimbursement from Tony for the children's uninsured medical expenses, and whether Tony had received all of the property to which he was entitled, including, in particular, the guns and auto mechanic equipment.

During the pendency of these matters, one of the children attained the age of majority and was no longer covered by the child support provisions of the decree, so that Tony's child support obligation under the decree was lowered to $771.73 per month. In the post-decree filings, Madelyn sought an increase in this amount and Tony sought a decrease. The parties proceeded to mediation on this issue, but no written, signed settlement agreement resulted. At a hearing, however, the mediator appeared and reported to the court that a settlement had indeed been reached to leave the child support obligation where it was under the original decree: $771.73. Tony, appearing pro se, subsequently appeared at the hearing and stated that whatever was in the prior decree was “fine.” The court then stated that they could set the issue aside and continue with other matters. At a later hearing, Tony requested the child support obligation be reduced, primarily because the Internal Revenue Service had garnished his wages.¹ In other hearings, the parties presented conflicting testimony regarding the amount of medical expenses Tony owed and whether he had received all of the property he was awarded that was in Madelyn's possession at the time of the divorce.

In its Final Order and Judgment, the trial court determined that one of the children was no longer covered by the child support provisions and expressly approved the parties' reported agreement that Tony pay $771.73 each month in child support for the remaining child. The judgment stated that “the parties agreed during mediation ... and announced on the record in open court, that the current child support ... remain the same.” The court further ordered Tony to pay Madelyn $3,383.00 plus interest for unreimbursed, out-of-pocket medical expenses. Additionally, the court expressly denied Tony's motion for enforcement and, in response to his Petition for Post–Divorce Division of Property, stated, “It is ordered that the guns are awarded to the person in possession of the guns as of April 1, 2012.”

Settlement Agreement

In his first issue, Tony contends that the trial court erred in its final judgment by approving the parties' agreement on child support—and basing his child support obligation on this agreement—after he had withdrawn his consent to the agreement. As set forth above, the record indicates that the parties agreed in mediation to keep the amount of Tony's child support obligation at the amount established in the final decree, but the parties never set that agreement down in writing, and Tony subsequently withdrew his consent and sought a reduction in his child support obligation.² Madelyn indeed appears to concede that there was no signed, mediated settlement agreement that could be enforced pursuant to Texas Family Code section 153.0071 regardless of any attempted revocation. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.0071³; see also In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 478–79 (Tex.2013) (Green, J., dissenting) (collecting cases holding that when a mediated settlement agreement meets the requirements of section 153.0071, the agreement can be enforced regardless of party's repudiation); Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex.2012) (“[O]nce signed, an MSA cannot be revoked like other settlement agreements.”); In re L.M.M., 247 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (holding mediated settlement agreement met statutory requirements and thus could be enforced despite party's revocation of consent).

Madelyn asserts, however, that when the parties indicated in open court that they had reached an agreement on child support, this announcement constituted a Rule 11 agreement that the trial court was within its authority to approve in the judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 11 (“Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record.”). The problem with this contention is that if a party revokes its consent to a Rule 11 agreement at any time before judgment is rendered in the case, the agreement can no longer simply be “approved” by the court; instead, the enforcement mechanism is through a separate breach of contract action. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Dixon, No. 12–13–00324–CV, 2014 WL 806373, at *2–3 (Tex.App.-Tyler Feb. 28, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (holding trial court erred by rendering divorce decree based on Rule 11 agreement where one party had withdrawn consent prior to rendition of judgment); In re M.A.H., 365 S.W.3d 814, 821 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.) (holding trial court erred by enforcing revoked Rule 11 agreement on child support and other matters, and, even assuming a breach of contract claim was raised in relation to revocation of the Rule 11 agreement, the judgment did not contain any ruling thereon); see also Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461–62 (Tex.1995) (“[A] court cannot render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at the time it is rendered ....”); Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex.1983) (holding that when trial court has knowledge that party does not consent to judgment, trial court should refuse to sanction agreement by making it the judgment of the court).

Here, as set forth above, Tony withdrew his consent to the agreement regarding child support prior to rendition of the judgment.⁴ The trial court therefore erred by incorporating that agreement into the final judgment.⁵ Accordingly, we sustain Tony's first issue, reverse the portion of the judgment regarding child support, and remand that issue to the trial court for further proceedings.

Medical Expenses

In issue two, Tony contends that the trial court abused its discretion in acceptingMadelyn's evidence regarding unreimbursed medical expenses, evidence which Tony maintains was “riddled with errors” and thus factually insufficient. We review the trial court's ruling on a post-divorce motion for enforcement of a divorce decree under an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Kerr, No. 14–08–00529–CV, 2009 WL 3000977, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re T.J.L., 97 S.W.3d 257, 265 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (applying abuse of discretion standard in reviewing order enforcing payment of child's medical expenses). Under that standard, we must determine “whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles; in other words, whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable.” Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990); In re T.J.L., 97 S.W.3d at 266. When, as here, the trial court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law, we imply that the trial court made all findings necessary to support the judgment and will uphold those findings if supported by sufficient...