In Re Chad Anthony Dupuis v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 15, 2023
• Docket: 02-23-00303-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00303-CV ___________________________

IN RE CHAD ANTHONY DUPUIS, RELATOR

On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-6349-367

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

Relator C.A.D. and Real Party in Interest A.A.D. (RPI) divorced in 2020, and

their agreed final divorce decree provided, among other things, that a party seeking to

modify or terminate the decree’s terms—including the terms pertaining to

conservatorship, possession of, and access to their two minor children and spousal

maintenance—had to pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees to the nonmovant as a condition

precedent before filing such a petition. The decree also stated, “To the extent

permitted by law, the parties stipulate the agreement is enforceable as a contract.”

Relator subsequently filed a petition to modify the decree’s possession-and-

access, child-support, and spousal-maintenance terms without pre-paying $10,000 in

attorney’s fees. The trial court granted RPI’s motion to abate the petition until Relator

paid, despite Relator’s argument that the parties’ contractual agreement in the divorce

decree should not preclude his moving forward with his statutory rights under the

Family Code.

In a single issue in this original proceeding, Relator complains that the trial

court abused its discretion by abating his petition and that he has no adequate remedy

by appeal. We requested a response from RPI, who opted not to file one.

Accordingly, based on the state of the law and Relator’s petition and record, we

conditionally grant Relator’s petition and order the trial court to reinstate the case.

2 II. Discussion

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy. In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19,

25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). The party seeking mandamus relief must show both

that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the party has no adequate

remedy by appeal. In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 875 (Tex. 2021) (orig.

proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when a decision is arbitrary,

unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles. Id.; see Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We review the trial court’s

legal determinations de novo, In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex.

2009) (orig. proceeding), and an error of law or an erroneous application of the law to

the facts is always an abuse of discretion. See In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d

82, 91–92 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding).

Additionally, a trial court abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily abates a civil

case for an indefinite period of time. In re Gore, 251 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding); see In re Shulman, 544 S.W.3d 861, 867, 870 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (“An abatement order may be

reviewed on mandamus when the abatement is indefinite in duration[] or it effectively

vitiates a party’s ability to present a claim or defense.[]”). And an agreement that

violates a valid statute is illegal and void. In re I.R.H., No. 04-12-00366-CV,

2013 WL 1850778, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 1, 2023, pet. denied) (mem.

3 op.) (holding condition precedent void when it attempted to contract around Family

Code Section 154.124(c)).

Under Family Code Section 154.124(c), the terms of an agreement pertaining to

child support may be enforced by all remedies available for enforcement of a

judgment, including contempt, but those terms “are not enforceable as a contract.”

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.124(c); see also id. § 8.057 (statutory guidelines for

modifying spousal maintenance); § 156.101 (statutory guidelines for modifying

possession and access); see generally Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP,

246 S.W.3d 653, 665 (Tex. 2008) (noting that the legislature determines public policy

through the statutes it passes and that it has “passed many laws declaring certain

agreements illegal and, therefore, against public policy”).

Because the trial court had no authority to abate Relator’s motion based on the

void portions of the parties’ agreement, we sustain Relator’s sole issue.

III. Conclusion

Having sustained Relator’s sole issue, we conditionally grant his petition for

mandamus relief and order the trial court to reinstate the case.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: September 15, 2023