Kenneth David Prather v. Ashley Lynn Prather

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00769-CV

KENNETH DAVID PRATHER, Appellant
V.

ASHLEY LYNN PRATHER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2020-77323

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kenneth David Prather appeals an Agreed Order in Suit to Modify Parent-
Child Relationship (the “Agreed Order”). First, he challenges the validity of the
underlying mediated settlement agreement (the “MSA”). Second, he contends the
trial court erred by denying an extension of time to allow arbitration. Because
Kenneth’s first issue is devoid of record support and his second issue is unsupported
by adequate briefing, we affirm the Agreed Order.
Background

Kenneth and Ashley Lynn Prather were divorced in April 2022. Several
months later, Kenneth filed an emergency petition to modify the parent-child
relationship; Ashley filed motions for child support enforcement and for property
division enforcement. The parties, both represented by counsel, signed a mediated
settlement agreement for temporary orders in October 2022. Kenneth’s counsel
withdrew in January 2023, and Kenneth represented himself thereafter. The court
ordered the parties to mediation.

In May 2023, the parties mediated their dispute, and our record contains a
signed MSA settling “all claims and controversies between them. . . .” The MSA
provided that parties “shall submit” to binding arbitration with the mediator of all:
(a) drafting disputes, (b) issues regarding the agreement’s interpretation, and
(c) issues regarding the parties’ intent as reflected in the agreement. The MSA was
filed with the trial court. Ashley filed a proposed “Agreed Order in Suit to Modify
Parent-Child Relationship” incorporating the terms of the MSA, which was
circulated among the parties in September 2023. On September 18, Kenneth filed
an “Answer,” in which he stated:

The presiding judge ordered the submission of the MSA on 9/15/2023.
The opposing coun[sel], amicus and I have yet to arbitrate the
outstanding issues of the MSA. . . . I am asking the court to postpone
the entry until Arbitration can occur or dismiss the Entry and allow us
to bring these issues in front of the court to be handled by the Judge.
This single-page document was neither notarized nor verified, and nothing indicates
that this filing was brought to the trial judge’s attention. The trial court signed the
Agreed Order on September 21, 2023. Kenneth did not file any post-judgment
motions.

Kenneth timely noticed his appeal.

2
Validity of MSA

Kenneth first complains that the MSA is not valid. Specifically, he argues
that the mediator was not impartial and that he, Kenneth, did not sign the MSA.
Kenneth claims that the mediator “became frustrated” with him “for not heeding her
judg[]ment and influence . . . , causing her to become angry and leave the
mediation. . . .” He also contends that there “are witnesses and affidavits proving
[he] did not sign the MSA. . . .”

Kenneth directs us to nothing in the appellate record—nor have we found any
record evidence—to support these contentions.1 It is the appellant’s burden to
demonstrate error requiring reversal. See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842,
843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Bentley v. Peck, No. 14-17-00561-CV, 2018 WL
4869484, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2018, pet. denied) (mem.
op.). When, as here, no objections are lodged or a party otherwise has not informed
the trial court that he does not consent to a mediated settlement agreement, the trial
court has a ministerial duty to enforce the agreement. See Fortis Benefits v. Cantu,
234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007); Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461 (Tex.
1995).

Because Kenneth has not shown that the MSA is invalid for the reasons he
claims, we overrule his first issue.

1
Kenneth’s brief provides the court minimal assistance because it includes no record
references, contrary to the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (requiring
briefs to contain citations to the record); see also San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d
323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (explaining that parties asserting error
on appeal must provide some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law
supports their contentions). We have nonetheless reviewed the available record in evaluating his
challenge to the MSA.

3
Extension of Time

In his second issue, Kenneth contends the trial judge erred by “denying an
extension of time to allow arbitration.” His argument in support of this issue is as
follows:

The Judge erred by not following the basic Texas Arbitration Rules, as
well as entering the MSA where it is outlined in the agreement that
Arbitration be mandatory in the ongoing issue concerning Child
Support Enforcement, thus violating the very MSA that was entered.
By allowing the Appellee and counsel to refuse to honor the writing of
the MSA to attend Arbitration, the Appellee and counsel were allowed
to write in the Final Orders precepts to fulfill their own personal agenda,
thus making the Final Orders unrecognizable to the terms in Mediation.
An appellate brief must contain a clear and concise argument in support of the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to the record and legal authorities. See
Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). As a pro se litigant, Kenneth is held to the same standards
as a licensed attorney and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. See
Harrison v. Reiner, 607 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020,
pet. denied). A pro se litigant must properly present his case on appeal just as he is
required to properly present his case to the trial court; if this were not the rule, pro
se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over those parties represented by
counsel. Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 930 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). It is an appellant’s burden to cogently discuss
his assertions of error, and we have no duty to perform an independent review of the
record and the law to determine whether there is error. Alleyton Res. Co. v. Ball,
No. 14-19-00816-CV, 2021 WL 2252232, at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
June 3, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

4
Kenneth provides no record references or legal authority in support of this
issue. Because Kenneth has inadequately briefed this issue, it presents nothing for
our review and we overrule it.

Conclusion

Having overruled both of Kenneth’s issues, we affirm the Agreed Order.

/s/ Kevin Jewell
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.

5