Background
Eric Hines filed for divorce from Tiffany Shavonne Stevenson Hines in August 2023. The parties signed a mediated settlement agreement in March 2024, and Eric’s counsel later received an email from court staff stating that the agreement had been approved by an associate judge, that no appearance was required at the May 24 pretrial conference, and that the June 3 trial date was set for entry or dismissal. The email chain and the trial court’s scheduling order were not included in the appellate record.
Before the pretrial conference, Tiffany moved to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging that Eric had failed to disclose information about the mortgage and that the agreement was not properly understood. Neither side appeared at the May 24 conference. On June 3, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice because no agreed decree was ready, and Eric moved to reinstate. After a hearing at which Eric’s counsel acknowledged receiving notice of Tiffany’s motion but said he may have missed it, the trial court denied reinstatement.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eric’s motion to reinstate. The trial court could reasonably find that counsel knew the parties disputed the terms of the final decree, had notice that failure to appear could result in dismissal, and failed to provide an adequate justification negating intent or conscious indifference.
The appellate court also rejected Eric’s argument that Texas Family Code section 6.602 required the trial court to enter judgment on the mediated settlement agreement instead of dismissing the case. Because the appellate record lacked the June 3 hearing transcript and the proposed divorce decree, the court could not determine whether Tiffany presented evidence supporting her challenge to the agreement or whether Eric’s proposed decree conformed to it. Eric therefore failed to provide a record demonstrating reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking reinstatement after dismissal for failure to appear must provide proof of accident, mistake, or another reasonable explanation that negates intent or conscious indifference.
- Counsel could not establish reversible error based on an email from court staff when the email chain was absent from the appellate record and circumstances may have changed after the email was sent.
- A party seeking judgment on a mediated divorce settlement must preserve a record allowing an appellate court to evaluate challenges to the agreement and determine whether the proposed decree conforms to it.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a binding mediated settlement agreement does not excuse compliance with docket-control orders when a dispute arises over the agreement or the proposed decree. Attorneys who learn that settlement terms are contested should not assume that an earlier authorization to skip a pretrial conference remains effective.
It also illustrates the consequences of an incomplete appellate record. Without the relevant scheduling order, court-staff emails, hearing transcript, and proposed decree, the appellate court presumed the trial court acted within its discretion and affirmed the dismissal without prejudice.