## Facts

- A husband and wife were involved in a Texas divorce proceeding and mediated the division of community assets and liabilities.
- The wife retained a CPA to help identify and value marital assets and assess tax consequences of settlement options.
- In December 1998, the parties executed a written “Rule 11 Stipulation and Mediated Settlement Agreement” dividing property and debts.
- The agreement was signed by both parties and their attorneys and contained a prominently displayed statement that it was not subject to revocation.
- An associate judge approved the mediated settlement agreement in January 1999.
- The wife later moved for entry of a final divorce decree based on the agreement.
- On the hearing date, the husband filed a motion to revoke, alleging mistake and misrepresentation based on the CPA’s alleged incorrect characterization of his retirement benefits.
- After a brief hearing, the trial court signed a final divorce decree conforming to the mediated settlement agreement.
- The decree initially misstated the place of rendition as Houston (Harris County) rather than the county where the case was filed and heard; the trial court later corrected this by nunc pro tunc order.

## Issues

1. Whether the divorce decree was void for lack of jurisdiction due to an incorrect recitation of the place of rendition.
2. Whether Texas Family Code § 6.602 requires entry of judgment on a mediated settlement agreement that meets the statute’s formal requirements.
3. Whether a party may unilaterally repudiate a § 6.602-compliant mediated settlement agreement before the decree is signed based on alleged mistake or misrepresentation.
4. Whether enforcing a § 6.602-compliant mediated settlement agreement violates open courts or equal protection under the Texas or United States Constitutions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree.
- The incorrect county recitation was a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc order and did not render the judgment void.
- Because the mediated settlement agreement satisfied § 6.602’s requirements, it was binding, not subject to revocation, and the wife was entitled to judgment on it.
- The husband’s attempted repudiation did not prevent the trial court from rendering judgment on the agreement.
- The husband’s open courts and equal protection challenges to § 6.602 enforcement were rejected.

## Legal Principles

- A mediated settlement agreement in a divorce case that (1) contains a prominently displayed nonrevocation statement, (2) is signed by each party, and (3) is signed by each party’s attorney (if present) is binding under Texas Family Code § 6.602.
- When § 6.602 applies, a party is entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement “notwithstanding Rule 11 ... or another rule of law,” displacing the general rule that consent to a settlement may be withdrawn before rendition of judgment.
- Allegations of mistake or misrepresentation, without a showing of a recognized basis to invalidate the agreement and without noncompliance with § 6.602, do not permit unilateral revocation of a compliant mediated settlement agreement.
- A clerical misstatement in a judgment’s recitals does not defeat jurisdiction and may be corrected by nunc pro tunc order.
- Section 6.602’s enforcement mechanism does not violate open courts where the litigant had access to file motions, be heard, and appeal; rational-basis review supports the statute against equal protection challenges.

## Conclusion

The court held that a properly executed, nonrevocable mediated settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding is enforceable by direct entry of judgment under Texas Family Code § 6.602, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn before the decree is signed, and is not unconstitutional under open courts or equal protection principles; the judgment was affirmed despite a correctable clerical error in the decree’s recitals.


Cayan v. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)