X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The appellant, Rene Joseph Mailhot (“husband”), and the appellee, Noma Kathleen Mailhot (“wife”), divided their marital property under an agreed divorce settlement. They reached the settlement during their divorce trial, which was tried to a jury, and after the trial court ruled to exclude certain evidence from the trial. In three issues, husband challenges the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, all of which occurred before entry of the settlement agreement. Husband asserts that he is entitled to appeal his agreed settlement under Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d), because the agreed settlement was not independent of, and was supported by, the trial court’s alleged erroneous rulings. Wife moves this court to award sanctions pursuant to rule 45 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure on the grounds that husband’s appeal of the agreed settlement is frivolous under well-established precedent. HOLDING: Affirmed. Husband argues that the trial court’s presettlement evidentiary rulings were erroneous, and that he agreed to the settlement as a result of the trial court’s erroneous rulings. Wife responds, and the court agrees, that husband has waived the right to appeal non-jurisdictional errors by agreeing to the settlement and asking the court to sign the judgment. A judgment entered on the agreement of the parties cures all non-jurisdictional defects. A party who asks the trial court to accept a settlement agreement and to enter judgment accordingly may not later attack that judgment. Casu v. Marathon Ref. Co., 896 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied). To preserve error for appeal, a party who signs a judgment must specify that his agreement with the judgment is as to form, but not as to substance and outcome. First Nat’l Bank v. Fojtik, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1989). Husband argues that this court should ignore this well-established authority regarding agreed civil settlements, and, instead, extend the criminal-law holding in Sanchez v. State to this case. 98 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). In Sanchez, this court held that when a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, the defendant waives the right to appeal a claim of error only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independently of, and was not supported by, the error claimed. The court granted the defendant in Sanchez a new trial, despite his guilty plea to the offense, because the trial court erred in denying a motion to reveal the identity of a confidential informant. Relying on Sanchez, husband argues that his agreed settlement judgment should be set aside if the court determines that the settlement was not rendered independently of, and was not supported by, the trial court’s allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings. Husband asserts that he agreed to the judgment only because the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied him the opportunity to introduce specific evidence to the jury, which he claims was crucial to the case. According to husband, this “nexus” between the trial court’s error and the agreed judgment entitles him to a new trial. The court declines to extend the holding in Sanchez from criminal cases to agreed judgments in civil cases. The civil rule precluding appeal of non-jurisdictional errors following agreed judgments is well-established, as addressed above. Civil litigants who disapprove of the terms of a judgment may object to the substance and appeal accordingly. The court concludes that the Sanchez holding, which pertains to criminal defendants’ guilty pleas, does not apply to appellant’s civil agreed judgment. Having entered into an agreed judgment with his wife, husband has waived any right to complain about the trial court’s prior evidentiary rulings. Husband has also waived the right to complain of the judgment that he asked the trial court to enter. Husband has not preserved error to complain of the judgment, which he “approved as to both form and substance.” Although there is no merit to husband’s appeal, the court declines to conclude that he has frivolously attempted to apply recent, ostensibly analogous authority from criminal jurisprudence to civil jurisprudence. OPINION: Alcala, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.