Reported / Citable
Background
Dustin Barrett and Hartley Garza, parents of three children, entered a mediated settlement agreement requiring Barrett to reimburse Garza for the children’s medical, dental, and vision insurance premiums as additional child support. After the trial court initially declined to enter judgment on the agreement, the Fourth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the court to enter an order consistent with the agreement.
The trial court’s February 16, 2024 modification order required Barrett to pay $489 monthly in medical support. It also said Garza would be solely responsible for the insurance costs unless she provided written premium documentation before July 1, 2023. Garza sought a judgment nunc pro tunc more than six months later to delete that sentence, which was not in the settlement agreement. The trial court granted the request, and Barrett appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The court vacated the November 1, 2024 judgment nunc pro tunc and reinstated the February 16, 2024 order. Once plenary power expired, the trial court could use nunc pro tunc relief only to correct a clerical error—a mismatch between the judgment rendered and the judgment entered—not a judicial error in the judgment itself.
There was no evidence that the trial court had rendered any judgment before signing the February order or had announced a judgment different from that written order. Thus, the signed February order was the judgment rendered. Removing the sentence concerning Garza’s responsibility for insurance costs substantively changed that judgment, even though the sentence conflicted with the mediated settlement agreement and the earlier mandamus directive. The nunc pro tunc order therefore corrected a judicial error after plenary power expired and was void.
Key Takeaways
- A nunc pro tunc judgment may correct only clerical errors after plenary power expires.
- Absent evidence of an earlier oral or written rendition, signing the written judgment constitutes rendition.
- A provision inconsistent with a settlement agreement may still be part of the rendered judgment and cannot be removed later through nunc pro tunc relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties must promptly review final orders, including orders intended to implement mediated settlement agreements. An erroneous substantive term generally must be addressed through a timely postjudgment motion, appeal, or, in narrow circumstances, a bill of review—not a later nunc pro tunc proceeding.