Roberto Vazquez v. Maria Angelica Vazquez

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 20, 2015·No. 13-15-00306-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-15-00306-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 10/20/2015 7:43:27 AM Dorian E. Ramirez CLERK

CAUSE NO. 13-15-00306-CV

INTHE FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALSCORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 10/20/2015 7:43:27 AM FOR THE DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

ROBERTO VAZQUEZ APPELLANT v. MARIA ANGELICA VAZQUEZ APPELLEE

APPELLANT'S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF

KATRINA DANNHAUS PACKARD SBN: 15402400 P. 0. BOX 11 9 SCHULENBURG, TEXAS 78956 TEL: (979) 743-4574 FAX: (979) 743 -4575 EMAIL: kdpwall(a)cvctx.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................ . 1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................... . .. 11 CORRECTION TO ANGLICA'S STATEMENT OF FACTS ................ . 1 S~Y OF ~GUMENT .............................................................. . 2 REPLY ISSUE 1. The trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing the intent of the parties in the mediated settlement agreement .... . 3 2. The trial court abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules and principles; i.e., ruling without supporting evidence ........... 4 PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Evans v. Evans, 14 S.W. 3d 343 (Tex. App - Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) ................................................ 5 Frost Nat'/ Bankv. L & F Distribs., 165 S.W. 3d 310 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) ................................................................................ 3 Richardson v. Richardson, 424 S.W. 3d 691, 696 (Tex. App - El Paso 2014, no pet.) ................................................ ........ ........... 4 SP Terrace, L.P. v. Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC, 334 S.W. 3d 275 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist] 2010, no pet.)................................................ 4

Statutes Tex. Fam. Code Ann §7. 00 1 .......................................................................... 3

Other Authorities Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. 1979 ........................................................... 2

ii AMENDED REPLY BRIEF TO RESPONSE ISSUES PRESENTED

A. CORRECTION TO ANGELICA'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

In Angelica's Statement of Facts, she misstates the record as to whether

Robert provided any evidence of his efforts to apply for a loan.

The court record evidences that on January 13, 2015, Roberto filed a Motion

to Set Aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement based upon its specific and

contractual terms and provided the Court with a Wells Fargo Application and

Denial of Loan. CR 55-66. In the subsequent hearings Roberto testified that he

had applied for a loan (and was denied) to Tex Star. 3 RR 20:2-23; 21 :2-25. The

court record further reflects that Roberto also made application for a loan (and was

denied) to the Fayette Savings Bank. CR 114-136. The court record evidences that

Roberto made application for a loan (and was denied) to the Fayetteville Bank. CR

137-157.

Duke Hengst, Senior Vice President of Loans at National Bank & Trust

testified that Roberto did timely make an application on November 26 for a loan in

the amount of $250,000.00. RR 3:9. Angelica agrees that a full and complete

reading of the record presented by this appeal reveals that the bank officer could

not state whether or not Roberto would have secured the loan. RR 3: 17-18.

1 Nonetheless, the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the

evidence and setting aside the mediated settlement agreement based on the

agreement's terms and provisions.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Angelica agrees in her brief that the mediated settlement agreement was

enforceable between the parties. However, she focuses on the distinction between

"effort" and "best effort", arguing that Roberto breached the mediated settlement

agreement because he withdrew his loan application at the National Bank & Trust.

The mediated settlement agreement is void of any specific terms, banks or

financial institutions in which Roberto was limited in making a loan application to

fulfill the requirements of the mediated settlement agreement. The use of effort, as

defined by both parties in their briefs to this Court reflect the use of 'an attempt; an

endeavor, a struggle directed to the accomplishment of an object". Blacks Law

Dictionary, 5th Ed. 1979. There is more than sufficient evidence that Roberto used

his 'efforts' in his attempt to 'secure a loan'. He made applications at four financial

institutions. He withdrew one application and was denied a loan at the remaining

three financial institutions.

Therefore, Angelica's argument has no merit and the trial court abused its

discretion in not enforcing the terms of the mediated settlement agreement.

2 In addition, Angelica argues that the trial court has discretion to divide the

community property. Texas Family Code§ 7.001 Nonetheless, the trial court did

not have the discretion to set aside the mediated settlement agreement and, without

receiving any evidence, make a division of community property.

Based on the evidence and the actions of the trial court, Roberto requests

this Court to reverse and remand this matter to the trial court to follow the dictate

of the Texas Supreme Court in its rulings as to mediated settlement agreement.

REPLY ISSUE NO. 1

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ENFORCING THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES IN THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Angelica does not dispute the enforceability of the mediated settlement

agreement as provided in her argument to this court. Angelica argues that this

Court must 'ascertain and give effect to the parties' intentions as expressed in the

document. Frost Nat'! Bank v. L & F Distribs., 165 S.W. 3d 310, 311-12 (Tex.

2005) (per curiam). As shown in the mediated settlement agreement the 'intent' of

the parties was specific in the language of the agreement itself:

The Parties agree that this Agreement is expressly contingent upon Roberto getting the loan necessary to allow him to pay Angelica the $250,000.00 required by this Agreement and in the event he is not able to secure such a loan, this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect.

CR27.

3 Roberto agrees with Angelica that this Court must give contractual terms

their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the contract shows

that the parties intended a different meaning to control. See SP Terrace, L.P. v.

Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC, 334 S.W. 3d 275, 281 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st

Dist.] 2010, no pet. The contractual terms and the intent of the parties is stated

clearly in the mediated settlement agreement: the agreement was contingent upon

Roberto getting the loan and if he is not able to secure such a loan, then the

agreement shall be ofno further force and effect. CR 27.

The intent between the parties could not be more clear. Roberto did not

breach the mediated settlement agreement. The evidence is clear that he was

unable to secure a loan. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not

following the intent of the parties and setting aside the mediated settlement

agreement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Roberto Vazquez v. Maria Angelica Vazquez, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Roberto Vazquez v. Maria Angelica Vazquez (Roberto Vazquez v. Maria Angelica Vazquez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frost National Bank v. L & F Distributors, Ltd.
165 S.W.3d 310 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Evans v. Evans
14 S.W.3d 343 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
SP Terrace, LP v. Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC
334 S.W.3d 275 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Thomas Mark Richardson v. Julie Ana Richardson
424 S.W.3d 691 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)