VKA Investments, LLC v. Anthony Baiamonte, III, 01-25-00861-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas.
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals granted a joint motion to reinstate and dismiss an appeal following a successful mediation, emphasizing the court’s authority to terminate appellate proceedings and issue an immediate mandate upon the parties’ agreement. Under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and 18.1(c), the court effectively bypassed the standard waiting period for finality, ensuring the settlement agreement took immediate effect.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of family law, the “limbo” period between reaching a settlement in mediation and the issuance of an appellate mandate can be precarious, particularly concerning the division of volatile assets or the implementation of modified custody schedules. This ruling demonstrates the tactical utility of Rule 18.1(c) to secure immediate mandate issuance, which is vital for practitioners who need to finalize Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) or property transfers that require a “final, non-appealable judgment” to satisfy third-party financial institutions or to trigger performance deadlines in an MSA.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appeal in VKA Investments, LLC v. Anthony Baiamonte, III originated from a dispute in the 234th District Court of Harris County. During the pendency of the appeal, the Court of Appeals abated the proceedings to allow the parties to attempt resolution through mediation. The mediation was successful, resulting in a comprehensive settlement of the underlying disputes. Following the settlement, the parties filed an “Agreed, Joint Motion to Reinstate and Dismiss the Appeal.” Within this motion, the parties specifically requested three forms of relief: the reinstatement and subsequent dismissal of the appeal without regard to the merits, an order that each party bear its own costs, and—most critically—the immediate issuance of the court’s mandate.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether it should exercise its discretion to reinstate an abated appeal for the sole purpose of dismissal and whether it should grant a joint request for the immediate issuance of a mandate pursuant to a private settlement agreement.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) to facilitate the parties’ desire for finality. Specifically, TRAP 42.1(a)(1) allows an appellate court to dismiss an appeal in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys. TRAP 42.1(d) governs the assessment of costs, permitting the court to follow the parties’ agreement on how expenses should be allocated. Finally, TRAP 18.1(c) provides the mechanism for the court to issue a mandate at the same time as its opinion and judgment, provided the parties so agree, thereby waiving the standard timelines for motions for rehearing or further petitions for review.
Application
The court’s analysis was straightforward and deferential to the parties’ contractual resolution. Because the parties reached a settlement during the court-ordered mediation, the appellate court found no reason to continue the litigation on its merits. The court noted that no other party had filed a notice of appeal and no opinion had yet been issued, which satisfied the requirements of TRAP 42.1(c). In applying the law to the joint motion, the court treated the agreement as a dispositive procedural roadmap. By granting the request for an immediate mandate under Rule 18.1(c), the court effectively collapsed the appellate timeline, moving the case from “pending” to “final” in a single judicial stroke. This allowed the parties to bypass the typical 30-to-45-day window normally required for a mandate to issue after a judgment.
Holding
The Court of Appeals reinstated the appeal and immediately dismissed it. The court held that under TRAP 42.1(a)(1), the parties’ agreement to dismiss was sufficient to terminate the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the merits of the case.
Regarding costs, the court held that consistent with the parties’ agreement and TRAP 42.1(d), each party would bear the costs they individually incurred during the appellate process.
In its most significant procedural holding, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to issue the mandate concurrently with the opinion and judgment. This action, taken under the authority of TRAP 18.1(c), finalized the trial court’s judgment immediately, precluding any further appellate delays.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case serves as a template for ending appellate litigation following a successful mediation. Often, trial counsel forgets that simply dismissing an appeal does not necessarily “speed up” the mandate. By specifically invoking Rule 18.1(c) in your Joint Motion to Dismiss, you can ensure that the trial court regains plenary power or that the judgment becomes “final” for the purposes of enforcing the terms of a decree or MSA immediately. This is particularly useful in cases where one party is prone to “buyer’s remorse” and might otherwise attempt to use the 15-day window for a motion for rehearing to disrupt a settlement.
Checklists
Finalizing the Post-Mediation Appeal
- Drafting the Joint Motion: Ensure the motion is titled as “Agreed” and “Joint” to signal total consensus to the Clerk.
- Specific Rule Cites: Explicitly cite TRAP 42.1(a)(1) for dismissal and TRAP 18.1(c) for the mandate.
- Cost Allocation: Clearly state that costs are to be “borne by the party incurring same” to avoid the default rule of taxing costs against the appellant.
- The Mandate Request: Include a specific prayer asking the Clerk to “issue the mandate concurrently with the opinion and judgment.”
Preventing Settlement Collapse
- MSA Integration: Include language in your Mediated Settlement Agreement requiring all parties to sign the Joint Motion to Dismiss with a Rule 18.1(c) request within 72 hours of execution.
- Stay of Enforcement: If the appeal involved a supersedeas bond, include instructions in the joint motion for the release of the bond or the discharge of the surety.
- Trial Court Notification: Once the immediate mandate issues, promptly file a copy in the trial court to resume any necessary enforcement or signing of ancillary orders (like QDROs).
Citation
VKA Investments, LLC v. Anthony Baiamonte, III, No. 01-25-00861-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This civil ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody cases to shut the door on “appellate gamesmanship.” In many high-net-worth divorces, an appellant may use a frivolous appeal as a stay of execution to avoid paying a large property equalization judgment. When that party finally settles in mediation, they often want to keep the “threat” of the appeal alive as long as possible to maintain leverage. By insisting on a Rule 18.1(c) immediate mandate as a non-negotiable term of the settlement, the appellee effectively “kills” the appeal instantly. This prevents the appellant from using the standard post-opinion period to file a motion for rehearing or a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court as a delay tactic if they decide they no longer like the deal they struck at mediation. Immediate mandate issuance is the ultimate tool for strategic finality in domestic relations litigation.
~~26111620-0e7d-4614-abb7-bc46b8d3990e~~
Share this content: