X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On April 7, 1980, a final decree of divorce was entered in Wayne County, Michigan, dissolving the marriage between the husband and the wife and ordering the husband to pay the wife child support for his three children. The relevant language of the decree (support order) states as follows: “[Husband] shall pay the sum of [f]orty-three ($43.00) [d]ollars, per week, in advance, to the Office of the Friend of the Court, as and for the support and maintenance of each of the minor children until the children shall respectively attain the age of eighteen (18) years or until the further [o]rder of the Court.” The clerk’s record reflects that the wife filed the following documents on Nov. 3, 1999: 1. a notice of registration of foreign support order; 2. a notice of application for judicial writ of withholding; and 3. a certificate of delivery of the notice of application for judicial writ of withholding. Husband filed his motion to stay issuance of writ of withholding on Dec. 14, 1999. Wife then filed a motion for cumulative judgment of child support arrears and a petition for suspension of licenses for failure to pay child support on Aug. 9, 2001. On Dec. 21, 2001, the wife filed a supplemental motion for cumulative judgment of child support arrears and petition for suspension of licenses for failure to pay child support. The trial court entered a cumulative money judgment in the amount of $276,450.85 against the husband on Dec. 31, 2001. The husband contends the trial court erred because 1. it did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law; 2. it enforced a decree that was ambiguous; and 3. it awarded child support in the amount of $43 per week per child. HOLDING:The court reverses the portions of the trial court’s judgment that pertain to the amount of child support arrearages and interest calculated on those arrearages, and remands with instructions that the trial court recalculate child support arrearages and interest. By failing to object to the husband’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Texas Family Code �158, the wife waived the right to assert that the husband was not entitled to contest the amount of arrearages reflected in the notice of application for writ of judicial withholding. The husband contends that he was harmed by the trial court’s denial of his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Where, as here, the facts are undisputed and the only matters presented on appeal are legal issues to be reviewed de novo, the failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is harmless error. Off. of the Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Wilson, 24 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. App. � Dallas 2000, no pet.). Emphasizing the use of the word “sum,” the husband argues that the language of the Michigan support order could be interpreted to mean that he was obligated to pay either $43 per week or $43 per week, per child. By contrast, stressing the use of the word “each,” the wife argues that the above language should be interpreted to mean that the husband was obligated to pay $43 per week, per child. The wife contends that there is no ambiguity in light of rule 3.211(E) of the Michigan Court Rules. Rule 3.211(E) provides, in relevant part, that “a judgment or order awarding child support also must 1. specify the amount of support both at the time of judgment and as the number of children for whom there is a support obligation decreases.” The court disagrees that this rule renders the order susceptible of only one interpretation. There is no dispute regarding whether the husband was ordered to pay child support for his children. The only dispute is the amount he was ordered to pay. Under either interpretation urged by the parties, the support order required the husband to pay at least $43 per week. Because the husband never moved to clarify his obligation under the Michigan support order, he can not now complain that it is too ambiguous, indefinite, and uncertain to support a money judgment. Texas Family Code �157.421. The court holds that the support order was sufficiently definite and certain to support a money judgment in the total amount of $43 per week in child support. OPINION:Hedges, J.; Nuchia, Keyes and Hedges, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.