(mem. op.); In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);
In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);
(mem. op.); In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);
(mem. op.); In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);
Appellant is incorrect. The temporary orders were rendered moot by the entry of the final divorce decree, see In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (internal citations omitted), and no claims remained pending once the trial court signed the decree.
It is well-settled that a temporary order is superseded by entry of a final order, rendering moot any complaint about the temporary order. In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)
It is well-settled that a temporary order is superseded by entry of a final order, rendering moot any complaint about the temporary order. In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)
A final judgment does not strictly comply with a settlement agreement when the trial court's judgment adds terms, significantly alters the original terms, or undermines the intent of the parties. In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). 1. Health insurance
However, Texas appellate courts, including this one, consistently have held otherwise. SeeIn re M.L.R. , No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) ; Brantley v. Brantley , No. 14-11-00583-CV, 2012 WL 727700, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 6, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Murphy v. Leveille , No. 2-08-130-CV, 2009 WL 2619857, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 26, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam); Barina v. Barina , No. 03-08-00341-CV, 2008 WL 4951224, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 21, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); cf.Matter of Marriage of Harrison , 557 S.W.3d 99, 137–38, No. 14-15-00430-CV, 2018 WL 2926268, at *29 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 12, 2018, no pet. h.) (indicating that party would need to "properly and timely present[ ]" any motion to enter judgment on MSA in trial court for purposes of preservation).See alsoPaisley , 2000 WL 19660, at *2 (rejecting wife’s argument that she had a right to judgment on MSA under sections 6.602 and 153.0071 of Family Code despite expiration of plenary power).
However, because the trial court entered a final judgment, temporary orders are moot and not subject to appellate review. See In re M.L.R., No. 05-15-00647-CV, 2016 WL 5791530, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("It is well-settled a temporary order is superseded by entry of a final order, rendering moot any complaint about the temporary order."); In re D.W., Nos. 01-13-00880-CV, 01-13-00883-CV, 01-13-00884-CV, 2014 WL 1494290, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).