Mediated Divorce Decree Supports Property Division and Guideline Child Support | In re B.H. and L.H. (2024)

In the Interest of B.H. and L.H., 09-24-00250-CV, June 25, 2026.

On appeal from 317th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas

Synopsis

The Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed a final divorce decree where the property division tracked the parties’ mediated agreement and the child-support award was based on testimony and financial information admitted at the prove-up. Because no objection was made in the trial court, and because materials attached only to the appellate brief were not part of the record, the appellant could not establish reversible error as to either property division or child support.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this case is a straightforward but important reminder that appellate complaints in divorce cases are won or lost at the prove-up and in the post-judgment record. If a mediated property term is incorporated into the decree, and no objection is lodged that the proposed division is not “just and right,” the appellate court is unlikely to disturb the award. The same is true for child support: if the trial court calculates support from testimony and admitted financial materials, a party who remains silent cannot later reconstruct a better evidentiary record by attaching documents to an appellate brief. In practical terms, this decision underscores preservation, record-making, and careful handling of mediated settlement terms involving residence disposition and self-employment income.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case arose from a divorce proceeding filed in Jefferson County. Before final hearing, the parties attended mediation and executed a memorandum of agreement. Relevant here, they agreed that the marital residence and lot would be listed for sale on or before November 1, 2024, and that the husband would pay child support consistent with Texas guideline support.

At the final hearing, both parties appeared pro se. The decree signed that day incorporated the mediated agreement as an exhibit and included orders concerning conservatorship, possession, child support, and division of the marital estate. On appeal, the wife challenged two features of the judgment: first, the requirement that the marital home be sold; and second, the amount of child support.

As to property, the wife argued on appeal that she had felt pressured during mediation to agree to sale of the home and that remaining there was important to her ability to care for the children and generate income. But at the hearing itself, the record reflected no testimony contesting the agreed property division beyond the memorandum of agreement, and the trial court expressly found the proposed division “just and right.” No objection was made.

As to child support, the trial court questioned the husband in detail about his self-employment income, expenses, depreciation, utilities, contract labor, supplies, and cost of goods. The court rejected certain claimed offsets, recalculated gross monthly income and net resources, and set support for two children accordingly, including a Medicaid reimbursement component and a step-down when one child ages out. On appeal, the wife argued the husband had not disclosed accurate income information, but the documents she relied on were attached to her appellate brief rather than included in the trial-court record.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellant preserved a complaint that the property division, including sale of the marital residence, was improper when the decree tracked the parties’ mediated agreement and no objection was made at the prove-up hearing.
Whether the appellant preserved a complaint to the child-support calculation when the trial court based its ruling on testimony and admitted materials and no objection was raised in the trial court.
Whether documents attached only to an appellate brief can be considered as evidence to show error in the property division or the child-support calculation.

Rules Applied

The court’s analysis rests on several familiar family-law and appellate principles.

First, community property in a divorce must be divided in a manner the trial court deems “just and right.” Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001. But where the decree reflects the parties’ own mediated agreement and no timely objection is made to the division adopted by the court, appellate review is sharply constrained.

Second, child support is determined from the obligor’s net resources under the Family Code, including the treatment of self-employment income and allowable deductions. See Tex. Fam. Code § 154.062. Here, the trial court actively examined the husband’s claimed business expenses and declined to allow certain items in computing support.

Third, error preservation remains essential. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, a complaint must be presented to the trial court by timely request, objection, or motion, and the complaining party must obtain a ruling or refusal to rule.

Fourth, a party generally may not appeal from a judgment to which she consented or agreed absent proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation. The opinion relied on authorities including Boufaissal v. Boufaissal, 251 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.), and similar preservation cases involving family-law complaints not raised below.

Finally, appellate courts are confined to the appellate record. Materials attached to a brief are not evidence. That principle is long-settled under Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. 1979), and it remains especially consequential in support cases involving disputed income.

Application

The court treated the appeal as a classic preservation failure. On the property issue, the decisive point was that the decree incorporated the mediated agreement, including the agreed timing for listing the marital residence and lot for sale. At the final hearing, the wife did not object that the agreement had been procured by coercion, did not contend that the proposed division was not just and right, and did not develop a record of fraud, duress, family-violence-related coercion, or misrepresentation. Nor did she pursue a post-judgment vehicle necessary to build that record. In that procedural posture, the appellate court had little difficulty concluding the complaint was waived.

The child-support issue followed the same path. The trial judge did not simply accept a conclusory number; he examined the husband’s self-employment finances in open court, questioned him about the nature of his work and claimed deductions, disallowed depreciation and household utility expenses, and then stated on the record the gross monthly income, net resources, support amount, Medicaid reimbursement, and step-down figure. If the wife believed the income evidence was false, incomplete, or misleading, that was the moment to object, cross-examine, offer contradictory exhibits, request findings, or move for new trial with competent proof. She did none of those things.

On appeal, the wife attempted to fill the evidentiary gap by attaching invoices, photographs, tax records, checks, and social media posts to her brief. But that strategy fails under basic appellate rules. Those materials were not admitted in the trial court and therefore were not part of the record the appellate court could review. The court accordingly confined itself to the existing record, which showed both an agreed property provision and a support calculation grounded in testimony and admitted financial information without contemporaneous objection.

Holding

The court held that the appellant failed to preserve any complaint about the property division. Because the final decree tracked the parties’ mediated agreement, the trial court found the division just and right, and no objection or developed claim of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation was presented in the trial court, the property award—particularly the sale provision concerning the marital residence—would not be disturbed on appeal.

The court also held that the appellant failed to preserve any complaint to the child-support award. The trial court calculated support from the evidence before it, including testimony regarding self-employment income and expenses, and the appellant did not object to the court’s examination, the admitted exhibits, or the resulting guideline calculation.

Relatedly, the court held that documents attached only to an appellate brief are not evidence and cannot be used to demonstrate trial-court error. Appellate review remained confined to the record made below, which did not support reversal.

Practical Application

This opinion is less about novel doctrine than about disciplined family-law trial practice. For litigators, the lesson is that mediated terms involving real property should never be treated as self-executing or immune from later attack unless the record clearly reflects informed consent and the absence of objection. If your client is wavering at prove-up, that is the time to act—not after entry of judgment. A mediated provision requiring sale of the marital residence may have obvious practical consequences for child stability, temporary housing, business use of the home, and possession logistics. Those points must be developed before the decree is signed, not repackaged as appellate equities later.

The child-support portion is equally useful, particularly in cases involving contractors, remodelers, cash-intensive businesses, and tax returns reflecting aggressive deductions. Trial judges routinely scrutinize depreciation, personal vehicle expenses, household utilities, and overlapping “supplies” or “cost of goods” claims. If you represent the obligee, be prepared to challenge characterization of business expenses in real time with bank records, 1099s, invoices, ledgers, photographs of business operations, and impeachment materials. If you represent the obligor, make the record clean: identify the business model, explain each expense category, separate personal from business expenditures, and present admissible backup documents.

The opinion also serves as a warning in pro se-heavy dockets: a quiet prove-up can produce a virtually unassailable judgment if no one objects. For counsel stepping into a post-judgment or appellate posture, the first question should be preservation. If the complaint concerns coercion in settlement, undisclosed assets, manipulated income, or a support figure based on false testimony, examine whether the issue was raised below, whether a motion for new trial was filed, and whether competent evidence was presented to create a reviewable record.

Checklists

Preserving Challenges to a Mediated Divorce Decree

Confirm on the record whether the decree precisely tracks the mediated agreement.
State any objection before the decree is rendered or signed.
If the client contends the agreement was coerced, induced by misrepresentation, or affected by family-violence-related pressure, develop those facts in admissible form at the hearing.
Request that the trial court refuse entry of the decree if the client withdraws consent before rendition and there is a legal basis to do so.
If necessary, file a motion for new trial raising fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or lack of consent and attach competent evidence.
Do not rely on appellate briefing to introduce new facts that were never presented below.

Trying Child Support Cases Involving Self-Employment Income

Obtain tax returns, profit-and-loss statements, bank statements, 1099s, invoices, and payment records before the prove-up.
Identify and challenge noncash deductions such as depreciation that may not reduce net resources for support purposes.
Separate true business expenses from personal living expenses paid through the business.
Be prepared to question duplicate or vague categories such as “supplies,” “materials,” and “cost of goods.”
Ask the court to state on the record the gross income, net resources, deductions allowed, and support calculation.
Offer your exhibits into evidence rather than merely referencing them in argument.

Protecting the Record at Prove-Up

Make sure all material agreements are either read into the record or attached to the decree.
Object to inaccurate factual recitations, unsupported support calculations, or incomplete property descriptions.
Request clarification if the court’s oral calculation is unclear.
Obtain rulings on all objections.
If the decree differs from the agreement or oral pronouncement, object before signing or move promptly after entry.
Order the reporter’s record if appellate review is possible.

Avoiding Appellate Defeat Based on Matters Outside the Record

Treat the appellate record as closed when the notice of appeal is filed, subject only to proper supplementation of materials actually before the trial court.
Do not attach “new evidence” to an appellate brief expecting the court to consider it.
If critical evidence was unavailable at trial, evaluate a motion for new trial or bill of review instead of relying on direct appeal alone.
Verify that every exhibit necessary to support your argument was admitted or formally tendered in the trial court.
Review the clerk’s and reporter’s records early to identify omissions while correction is still possible.

Citation

In the Interest of B.H. and L.H., No. 09-24-00250-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 25, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~825a9d5b-e67e-4993-8b57-682920bd4cf2~~

Share this content: