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:During the course of this divorce suit, the parties mediated and reached a written mediated settlement agreement. The agreement was signed by the parties and their attorneys, filed with the trial court, and states “THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION.” Attached to the agreement were several pages of terms relating to the custody and support for the parties’ minor child. Also attached was a single page spreadsheet with “Haynes v. Haynes Property division” handwritten at the top of the page. This spreadsheet listed several assets and their net value, and contained two columns dividing the value between husband and wife. The total property division was approximately 60 percent to wife and 40 percent to husband. Attached to the property division was a single sheet containing handwritten division of liabilities between husband and wife. The main settlement agreement provided that its terms would be incorporated in a final decree of divorce following the forms published in the Texas Family Law Practice Manual and prepared by wife’s attorney. The agreement also provided that other closing documents would be prepared by the attorney for the party who would benefit thereby and would follow the practice manual forms. Any disputes regarding the interpretation or performance of the agreement, including the necessity and form of closing documents, were to be resolved by a conference call with the mediator and where possible by reference to the practice manual forms. The primary dispute involves the division of husband’s nontransferable employee stock options. The property division spreadsheet listed these simply as “options” with a net value that was divided 60 percent to wife and 40 percent to husband. Wife’s attorney prepared an agreed final divorce decree containing detailed procedures for the exercise and division of the stock options and making husband constructive trustee for the options awarded to wife. Husband never withdrew his consent to the settlement agreement, but neither he nor his attorney signed the proposed final divorce decree. At a hearing on wife’s motion to enter the decree, husband objected to the procedures relating to the options because they imposed additional duties, liabilities, and burdens on him. The trial court took the case under advisement and later signed the proposed decree with some modifications. husband appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed. The parties agreed to the material terms of the property division. They agreed to a specific division of their property, but they did not specify the mechanisms to implement and effectuate that division. They also agreed to execute additional documents and a divorce decree following the forms in the family practice manual. The property division spreadsheet merely allocated the value of the options between husband and wife. The decree includes provisions giving effect to the agreement that the nontransferable stock options would be divided between husband and wife. While silent on the mechanics of this division, the agreement reflects an intent to divide the options and the decree is consistent with that intent. The parties did not specify the manner in which their home would be conveyed, by general warranty deed, special warranty deed, or quitclaim deed; they simply agreed the home would be awarded to wife. Husband does not challenge that the divorce decree requires him to execute a special warranty deed to wife of his interest in the home. Nor does he complain about other provisions in the divorce decree requiring him to execute documents necessary to transfer title to vehicles or stock awarded to wife, even though these specific provisions were not mentioned in the settlement agreement. A trial court has no power to supply terms not previously agreed to by the parties; however, the parties here agreed to the material terms of their property division and nothing in the divorce decree varies from that agreement. The divorce decree’s provisions implementing and effectuating the agreed division of the options do not vary the terms of the mediated settlement agreement; rather, they carry those terms into effect. Thus, the trial court did not supply terms to which the parties had not agreed. Husband objects to the provisions in the divorce decree regarding income tax returns for the year of divorce and indemnity for undisclosed debts and obligations. Parties agreed to sign a divorce decree incorporating the terms of the agreement and following the forms in the practice manual. The provisions in the decree regarding tax returns for the year of divorce and indemnity for any undisclosed debts follow the forms published in the practice manual. These provisions are consistent with the mediated settlement agreement. OPINION:Jim Moseley, J.; Wright, Moseley and Lang, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.