(a) After the written agreement of the parties, the court may refer to arbitration an appeal concerning the parent-child relationship.  The agreement must indicate whether the arbitration procedure is binding or non-binding. Since compliance with section 6.602 of the Family Code does not in any way require the registration of a judgment on an MSA, we go beyond the first edition of Relator and its second question insofar as it asserts that the MSA is not subject to the common law defence of fraud. However, since the protocol does not support the finding of all the elements of a ground for fraud, the court of justice could not reasonably have granted Marie`s request to annul the MSA for fraud. We support Relator`s second problem in that it complains about the state of the evidence in support of the application. Due to our arrangement of the second edition of Relator, we do not need to take into account its third edition. TEX. R.APP. P. 47.1. In essence, Marie argues that there are derogations from the Section 6.602(c) Directive that a party has the right to go through a compliant MSA “notwithstanding Rule 11 .

. . or another state of law. Generally speaking, the “other state of law” language in section 6.602(c) refers to how a negotiated settlement agreement is applied. It indicates that the legislator wished to create a procedural shortcut for the application of settlement agreements negotiated in the event of divorce. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d to 166. Therefore, parties to an MSA are not required to bring a separate infringement action to enforce the agreement. Some courts of appeal have the phrase “notwithstanding Rule 11 . .

. or another State under the rule of law” to “not require a court of law to impose a negotiated settlement agreement simply because it complies with section 6.602(b), regardless of what the agreement provides or how it was obtained”. Boyd, 67 S.W.3d at 403. These courts conclude that the law does not require the application of an MSA that is unlawful in nature or obtained through fraud, coercion, coercion or other dishonest means. See Davis v. Davis, no. 01-12-00701-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2591, at *9 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] March 6, 2014, no pets.) (mem. op.); Morse v. Morse , 349 S.W.3d 55, 56 (Tex.

App.-El Paso 2010, no pets.) (equal); Spiegel v. KLRU Endowment Fund, 228 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007, pet. “It is obvious that a court cannot interpret a law or treaty to impose or enforce an illegal obligation or to impose an illegal act in any other way, because the purpose of the legal system is to combat illegal acts and not to promote them.” Cayan, 38 S.W.3d to 166 n.8. A court of law has jurisdiction not to enforce illegal provisions in negotiated settlement agreements. Garcia-Udall v. Udall , 141 S.W.3d 323, 331-32 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pets.). Based on this series of cases, we agree with Marie that an MSA obtained through misrepresentation and fraud should not be taxed.

Reply from the relator Max B. Hanson, relator, requests a request that asked the Court of Justice to restore the negotiated settlement agreement signed by Le Relator and his wife Marie-Claude L. . .