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:A community asset of Jon and Janci Ricks’ marriage was three shares in a medical center. In their divorce proceeding, the parties decided to mediate the case, reached an agreement concerning the division of their property and custody of their four children, and signed a mediated settlement agreement. The same day that the parties’ divorce decree was signed by the judge, Jon gave Janci a copy of their federal income tax joint return and asked her to sign it, which she did. Janci noticed the return included income from “real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.,” but the return did not include the supporting schedules for this entry. The next day, Janci went to their accountant’s office for a copy of the schedules and learned that $36,000 of that amount was dividend income from the three shares in the medical center. Janci filed a motion for new trial in which she argued Jon committed fraud and breached his fiduciary duty to her by misrepresenting the true value of the shares in the medical center. Janci amended her motion for new trial and additionally asked the trial court to set aside the divorce decree because it did not comply with the mediated settlement agreement. Jon’s attorney moved for a “directed verdict,” arguing Janci had failed to show she was entitled to a new trial. The trial court granted the “directed verdict” and denied the motion for new trial. This appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. Janci argues the trial court should have set aside the final decree and granted her a new trial because 1. the decree, which was based on a mediated settlement agreement, did not comply with Texas Family Code 6.602(a); 2. the mediated settlement agreement was obtained through her husband’s alleged fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty; 3. the decree did not strictly conform to the terms of their mediated settlement agreement; and 4. newly discovered evidence of the value of a community asset warranted a new trial. Section 6.602(a) states the court may refer the parties to mediation on the parties’ written agreement or on the court’s own motion. The court notes that the trial court did not refer the parties to mediation; the parties agreed to mediation. But there is no evidence the parties agreed in writing to mediate the case. Accordingly, Janci argues the mediated settlement agreement is unenforceable. But the court points out that for Janci to preserve this issue for appellate review, the record must show she made her complaint to the trial court by a timely request, objection or motion. Janci never complained to the trial court that the mediated settlement agreement was unenforceable because it failed to comply with the family code. As a result, the court holds that Janci failed to preserve error on this issue. Janci next concedes she knew about the existence of the medical center shares prior to the mediation but claims Jon intentionally hid the shares’ true value from her. Had she known the true value of the shares, she states she would not have agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement. However, the court finds no evidence in the record that Jon represented a value for the shares other than the value assigned by their experts and the comparable sales value arrived at during mediation. And Janci did not present any evidence of a different value. The court therefore concludes that Janci did not show that Jon misrepresented the true value of the medical center shares, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion for a new trial. Addressing her third issue on appeal, the court finds that Janci signed the final decree, agreeing “as to content.” And after it was entered, she never made the trial court aware of her specific complaints about the decree. She did not object to the decree in her first motion for new trial. Janci stated that after she signed the decree, she reviewed it and found discrepancies between it and the settlement agreement and called her attorney and demanded he make the changes. Janci argued she would not have agreed to the final decree if she had known these changes had not been made. The court found that Janci only generally objected to the decree as containing mistakes but did not make the trial court aware of her specific objections. As a result, the court concludes Janci failed to preserve error for review. In her fourth issue, Janci argues the trial court should have granted her a new trial because of the newly discovered evidence that Jon misrepresented the value of the medical center shares. As with her issue two, the court finds that she is really arguing that she would not have agreed to settle the case on the terms in the judgment if she had known about the $36,000. Janci does not explain how the $36,000 income is evidence of a different value for the shares, or how it is new evidence when she was aware prior to mediation that the shares generated income. Therefore, the court concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Janci’s motion for new trial. OPINION:Elizabeth Lang-Miers, J.; Whittington, Moseley and Lang-Miers, JJ.

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.