A settlement agreement in a Texas divorce can allow the parties an amicable resolution, avoiding lengthy and contentious litigation. In some cases, however, a party may wish to repudiate the agreement or revoke their consent to the agreement. A party may revoke consent to an agreement before rendition of the divorce. See Tex. Fam. Code § 7.006(a). In a recent high net worth divorce case, a former wife challenged the final divorce decree, arguing she had revoked consent to the parties’ settlement agreement.
According to the appeals court, the parties were married for nearly 38 years when they petitioned for divorce. According to the appeals court, the wife’s proposed property division valued the marital estate at more than $5 million. The parties reached an agreement during the trial on April 22, 2024. The trial court stated it would adopt the agreement. It also stated it “will grant [the] divorce based on insupportability and. . .will accept the agreement. . .” After being asked by the husband’s attorney, the court stated it “rendered that today. . .”
Both parties and their attorneys signed a copy of the agreement titled “Judge’s Order” and it was signed by the court and file-marked in April.
The husband moved to sign the final decree in June. The wife identified discrepancies between his proposed final decree and the Judge’s Order the parties signed. She subsequently moved to revoke her consent to the Agreement.
The court denied the wife’s motion to revoke consent. It struck certain provisions in the husband’s proposed decree and signed the divorce decree. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on the wife’s request.
Rendition of Judgment
The wife appealed, arguing the court had not exhibited a present intent to render judgment at the trial.
Rendition is the first phase or reducing a decision to a final judgment in Texas. It which occurs when the court declares its decision on the issues, either orally or in a signed memorandum. Rendition has not occurred if the judge only expressed an intent to render judgment. The second phase is signing, which may occur at the same time as the rendition. The third step is the clerical act of entry, which is performed by the clerk of the court.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found it had “rendered judgment on the agreement. . . .” It also stated in its conclusions that “the agreements were in force and effect at the time of the rendition.”
The wife argued the court’s language indicated a future intent to render judgment rather than a present intent. She pointed to the use of the word “will” when the agreement was read into the record, both with regard to who would receive property and with regard to the court’s adoption of the agreement. The court stated it “will adopt the agreement” and that the agreement “will be the order of the Court.”
The appeals court acknowledged that this type of language, standing alone, generally does not reflect a present rendition, but instead indicates a future intent. In this case, however, there was additional evidence supporting the court’s intent to render judgment on April 22, 2024. The court subsequently stated it had rendered judgment that day. The Judge’s Order, which stated the agreement, was signed by the parties, their attorneys, and the judge that day and file-stamped a few days later. Both parties had testified and asked the court to adopt the agreement. The court’s findings and conclusion also supported rendition occurring on April 22.
Full, Final, and Complete Judgment
The wife argued no “full, final, and complete judgment” was rendered on Aprill 22 because the trial court had not found that the agreement’s terms were just and right, there were provisions in the final decree that were not contemplated by the agreement, and the parties negotiated issues relating to the judgment on October 4. The husband argued the court had rendered full, final, and complete judgment in April because they had stipulated the agreement’s terms were just and right. He also argued the additional provisions in the decree effectuated implementation of the agreement and did not change any material terms.
The husband testified the agreement was “just, right, and equitable.” The wife testified she agreed to the property division. Both asked the court to approve the agreement. The court’s findings of fact included findings that the property division was “just and right” and that the evidence and testimony supported it “as just and right.” The court stated a number of factors it considered.
The appeals court noted the trial court was not required to make an independent determination the division was just and right when the parties had both agreed that it was just and right. The appeals court concluded the trial court had determined the agreement was just and right, based on the parties’ testimony as to the agreement and the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Provisions in the Decree
The wife also argued the final decree included provisions that were not included in the parties’ agreement, specifically provisions related to: their bonuses from the husband’s law firm, their interest in travel and hotel reward benefits, liability for income taxes through December 31, 2023 and an indemnification provision, indemnification for 2024 federal income taxes, and the exclusive use of their credit cards and enjoining them from incurring debt on cards allocated to the other party.
The appeals court noted that the parties had “agree[d] to partition income as of April 21st, 2024.” The decree awarded each their own bonus from the law firm. The appeals court concluded that the decree was consistent with the parties’ intent to “partition income” as of April 21, 2024.
Although the parties had not testified about their travel/hotel reward benefits, the wife listed them in both her inventory and appraisement exhibit and her proposed property division. She did not, however, list a value for them. The appeals court determined the travel/hotel reward benefits were not material terms of the settlement agreement and their inclusion in the decree was consistent with the parties’ intent.
The appeals court pointed out the indemnification provisions for the 2023 and 2024 taxes were struck from the October decree.
The parties had agreed that each spouse’s credit cards were their own respective liability. The decree gave each party exclusive use of their own credit cards and enjoined the other party from using or incurring any debt on the other party’s cards. The appeals court concluded the decree was consistent with the parties’ intent in the agreement.
The appeals court concluded the decree included only terms necessary to effectuate or implement the agreement. The trial court had therefore rendered a full, final, and complete judgment in April.
Revocation
The appeals court noted the wife attempted to revoke consent, but the revocation was ineffective because it occurred after the rendition, which the appeals court concluded occurred in April.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Seek Legal Advice
This case shows that a spouse’s ability to revoke their consent to a settlement agreement is very limited. Both parties should fully understand the terms ad be sure they agree before signing. If you are facing a high net worth divorce, you should speak to an experienced Dallas divorce attorney. Set up a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.