In Re Mabray

355 S.W.3d 16 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

After 35 years of marriage, W discovered H's alleged ongoing infidelity and sought a divorce. W retained Tindall and filed an action for divorce in September 2008. H retained Keen and filed an answer. On February 12, 2009, the parties and their counsel signed a four-page document titled 'Cooperative Law Dispute Resolution Agreement' ('the Agreement'). The parties agreed to 'effectively and honestly communicate with each other with the goal of efficiently and economically settling the terms of the dissolution of the marriage.' The Agreement forbids formal discovery unless agreed upon, relying instead on 'good faith' informal discovery. The Agreement also provides that, if the divorce was not settled by April 30, 2009, the cooperative law process would cease and the parties agreed to submit the divorce to binding arbitration. The trial court signed the order on August 12, 2009, ordering the parties to submit their dispute for arbitration before the newly-designated arbitrator on August 26, 2009--a date agreed to by the parties. Two days after the agreed order had been signed, W filed a motion to revoke her consent to arbitration. Six days after that, she filed a motion to disqualify Keen, H's counsel; Because Keen would be unable to continue to represent H in litigation under a collaborative law agreement once the collaborative process had failed, W contends that Keen must also be disqualified after the cooperative process failed. H moved to enforce the Agreement and to compel arbitration, noting that the Texas collaborative law statute is inapplicable to cooperative law agreements. , concluding that 'if they want to enter into an agreement. W filed this writ.