Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Katy Engineer appeals a divorce decree on the grounds that its property division: 1. failed to include certain requirements contained in the parties’ mediated settlement agreement; and 2. disregarded portions of the arbitrator’s award without complying with the statutory requirements for modifying an arbitration award. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. A court may either enter a property division agreement in its entirety or decline to enter it all, but has no discretion to change such an agreement before entering it. If an appellate court determines that the decree contains terms and provisions that were never agreed to by the parties, it must reverse the judgment and remand the cause. The agreement provided that disputes concerning the interpretation or performance of the agreement would be submitted to binding arbitration with the mediator. The trial court’s finding of fact number 14 correctly describes the alimony provision in the agreement, but finding 22 indicates that disputes arose between the parties regarding unspecified terms of the agreement and that the parties participated in binding arbitration. Finding 55 states that the trial court did not conduct a trial on the merits, and thus did not make any independent findings as to the property division. The trial court’s conclusion of law number 15 states that the decree incorporates the agreement as modified and clarified in arbitration and as thereafter corrected and/or modified by the court upon proper pleadings and proof. However, the alimony provision in the decree differs from that in the agreement, and the Dec. 4, 2001, arbitration award that was incorporated into the decree does not address the alimony provision. Even though the alimony provision in the agreement is ambiguous, the Family Code does not authorize a court to modify an agreement before incorporating it into a decree. The court sustains Katy’s second and third points of error and need not address her other challenges to the decree. OPINION:Edelman, J.; Yates, Edelman and Guzman, 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.