Pros And Cons Of Mediated Settlement Agreements

Mediated Settlement Agreements and Judicial Discretion Texas, both through statute and judicial interpretation, strongly encourages alternative dispute resolution, in order to keep disputes peaceful and efficient both in terms of court’s time and use of parties’ resources. This is particularly true in family law cases, where tensions and conflicts have impacts far beyond a typical commercial transaction or civil dispute. As such, mediated settlement agreements are given much deference under Texas Law. In most instances, mediated settlement agreements are binding when the written agreement “provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or capital letters or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation,
These courts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s lack of including the section of the Family Code that applies to termination as meaning that best interests determinations are still proper in cases with such final and long-term impacts as termination of parental rights. In these cases, those appellate courts have relied on the Supreme Court’s differentiation between suits involving conservatorship versus termination. The Dallas Appellate Court has not made their thoughts on this clear. In one case, the court has held that “a trial court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation and, if a mediated settlement agreement is reached, must enter a judgment on the agreement without inquiry into whether it is in the best interest of a child.” But, this case did not make the distinction between 153.002 and 161.002, and makes no mention of KD or JH, even though it was filed after the two. This case covered 102.004, grandparent conservatorship. However, the court has cited the logic of considering best interests in termination cases with seeming approval, but notes that it doesn’t apply to cases concerning TFC 161.211, (direct or collateral attack on termination order after 6
A trial court has discretion to provide any clarification necessary to implement the terms of an MSA, but it does not have discretion to substantially alter the terms. However, the Dallas Court of Appeals has held that, in rare scenarios, courts can enter motions that deviate from mediated settlement agreements, as long as the changed or deleted provisions are rendered moot by the court, the trial court lacks authority to enforce the offending provisions, or a harmless error is committed in the deviation, (i.e., the error complained has to have harmed the party).
In addition, appeals courts have found that in suits considering conservatorship, courts may not modify and enter an order that substantially modifies the meaning of the mediated settlement agreement. However, courts to have discretion to include interpretative changes. For example, if a mediated settlement agreement contradicts itself, the court has the discretion to interpret the offending language according to the written intent of the parties. These changes by a trial court require a heavy burden to be overturned; they must significantly material alter the meaning and impact of the MSA.
Conclusion
Overall, Texas law provides enormous deference to the validity and enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. Judicial discretion to deny, except, or modify properly constructed agreements is the exception,