## Facts

- Husband and Wife were married for more than 30 years and divorced under a written, court-approved agreement incorporated into the divorce decree.
- Husband was an anesthesiologist and president of a medical partnership, earning about $800,000 annually at the time of divorce.
- The agreement expressly noted a disparity in the parties’ education, income, and earning capacity.
- Husband agreed to pay Wife about $18,500 per month in long-term support; part would terminate on Wife’s remarriage, but most would end only on Wife’s death.
- The agreement granted Wife a security interest in Husband’s partnership interest and included language addressing nondischargeability in bankruptcy.
- After the decree, Husband was suspended from work, ultimately forfeited his partnership interest, and stopped making the monthly payments.
- Wife filed a motion in the divorce court to enforce the decree; the trial court entered a judgment exceeding $1 million for unpaid amounts.

## Issues

1. Whether Wife was required to bring a separate breach-of-contract action, rather than seek enforcement through a motion in the divorce court.
2. Whether the incorporated agreement was void or unenforceable for ambiguity.
3. Whether Husband established impossibility of performance based on post-decree loss of income and partnership interest.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s enforcement order and judgment for Wife.
- Enforcement in the divorce court was proper because the parties’ agreement was approved and incorporated into the decree, making it enforceable as a court judgment.
- The agreement was not void for ambiguity because the payment amount, duration, and termination conditions were sufficiently definite.
- Husband did not prove impossibility; reduced income and financial hardship did not excuse a monetary payment obligation under the decree.

## Legal Principles

- A court-approved settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree may be enforced through post-judgment enforcement proceedings in the divorce court, not only through an independent contract suit.
- Incorporated settlement terms are construed using ordinary contract interpretation principles; a provision is not ambiguous if it can be given a definite legal meaning.
- Impossibility generally requires an objective barrier to performance; economic hardship and decreased earning capacity typically do not excuse an obligation to pay money.
- When an agreed decree provides fixed, long-term payment terms and limited termination events, the obligor bears the risk of later income changes absent an express modification mechanism.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of the agreed divorce decree’s long-term monthly payment obligation, rejecting procedural, ambiguity, and impossibility challenges and affirming a judgment exceeding $1 million for arrearages.


Castro v. Castro, No. 14-12-00944-CV, 2013 WL 1928742 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 9, 2013)