Boufaissal v. Boufaissal
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
Opinion by
Frances Boufaissal (Wife) appeals from an agreed decree of divorce. In three issues, she contends (i) the trial judge erred in orally rendering judgment in the absence of a completed settlement agreement between the parties; (ii) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial judgeās oral rendition of judgment; and (in) the trial judge erred in signing and entering the agreed decree of divorce because its terms varied materially from the partiesā rule 11 settlement agreement. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, after approving and consenting to entry of the agreed divorce decree as to both form and substance, Wife may now raise the above issues on appeal. Because she cannot, we affirm.
After a prove-up hearing on June 5, 2006, Wife and Husband tendered an agreed decree of divorce to the trial judge for signature. The agreed decree recites the terms of the partiesā divorce and property division and contains the following language:
FRANCES BOUFAISSAL agrees to the terms of this Decree as evidenced by her signature and that of her attorney below.
[[Image here]]
The parties entered into a Rule 11 Agreement on or about April 12, 2006 to settle the terms of their divorce. The Court finds the terms of that Rule 11 Agreement are memorialized in this Agreed Decree of Divorce.
[[Image here]]
The Court finds that the pleadings of Petitioner are in due form' and contain all the allegations, information, and prerequisites required by law. The Court, after receiving evidence, finds that it has jurisdiction of this case and of all the parties and that at least sixty days have elapsed since the date the suit was filed. The Court finds that, at the time this suit was filed, Petitioner had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and a resident of the county in which this suit was filed for the preceding ninety-day period. All persons entitled to citation were properly cited.
[[Image here]]
The Court finds that the following is a just and right division of the partiesā marital estate, having due regard for the rights of each party.
[[Image here]]
The parties stipulate and the court finds that all assets and debts set forth in this AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE represent the total and complete value, as of the date of entry by the court, of the assets and debts acquired during the partiesā marriage.
[[Image here]]
APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO AS TO BOTH FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
/s/_
FRANCES BOUFAISSAL, Petitioner
/s/-
JOSEPH BOUFAISSAL, Respondent
Relying on the evidence presented at the prove-up hearing and the signatures of the parties above, the trial judge signed and entered the agreed divorce decree on June 22, 2006.
A party cannot appeal from a judgment to which she has consented or agreed absent an allegation and proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation. Baw v. Baw, 949 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no writ); Gillum v. Re
Wife does not claim in her motion for new trial or on appeal that her approval and consent to the terms of the agreed divorce decree were obtained by fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation.
We affirm the agreed decree of divorce entered by the trial judge.
. Wife filed a motion for new trial alleging the terms of the agreed decree of divorce vary from the terms of the parties' rule 11 settlement agreement, but she does not raise the trial judgeās denial of her motion for new trial as an issue on appeal. Thus, we do not consider evidence admitted at the motion for new trial hearing or the propriety of the trial judgeās denial of her motion.