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
4