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:Larry and Anna Marie married in 1983, had a child in February 1984 and were divorced in September 1984. Anna Marie was named managing conservator of the child, and Larry was ordered to pay child support. He paid her a total of $120. Anna Marie went to live with her father, Royce Daily, in 1988 or 1989. In 1998, Daily was named the child’s managing conservator, and Larry was ordered to pay child support to Daily. Larry paid about $5,100 of the $7,200 he owed Daily, and the attorney general helped Daily get a judgment of child support arrears against Larry. In 2002, Anna Marie filed a motion for enforcement of the divorce decree’s child support order. She sought only child support that had accrued before Daily’s appointment as managing conservator: approximately $23,500. The trial court ordered Larry to pay $23,400, then found him in contempt for failure to make payments in the past. Larry appeals the contempt order and the child support arrearages order. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court holds that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to review a trial court’s contempt order. The court acknowledges that in In re Taylor, 45 S.W.3d 357 (Tex.App. � Waco 2001, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]), this court held that review of contempt orders in the context of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship was permissible. Taking note of the myriad cases in other appellate courts holding otherwise, the court concludes that “to the extent that Taylor suggests that a contempt order is a final, appealable order, we take this opportunity to overrule it.” The court adds that the law prior to and since 1995 has been that a ruling on a motion for contempt is not appealable, and can only be challenged by an original proceeding. By its holding in this case, the court says it is not “back into accord with the Texas Supreme Court and the other courts of appeal.” Consequently, the court dismisses Larry’s contempt issue. On the general issue that Anna Marie did not have possession of the child and did not contribute to her support, Larry raises affirmative defenses of estoppel, laches and res judicata. Larry did not plead estoppel, and the court finds no evidence that the issue was tried by consent. Aside from the fact that laches does not generally bar actions that are otherwise within the statute of limitations, the court finds that Larry did not raise this issue at trial, either. Finally, the court rules that the judgment in favor of Daily is not res judicata of Larry’s child-support obligation to Anna Marie. Plus, he didn’t raise this issue at trial, either. In attacking the ruling on general grounds of best interest of the children, Larry raises arguments of equity, continuance and joinder. Larry contends that it is inequitable to award Anna Marie arrearages since she was not responsible for the girl. Larry did not come to the court with clean hands, the court notes, and he fails to make the connection that Anna Marie moved in with Daily because she could not afford � without payments from Larry � to raise her daughter on her own. Moreover, there is no evidence that anyone other than Anna Marie took care of the child prior to their move into Daily’s house. Larry never moved for a continuance, so that argument is rejected, as is Larry’s argument that Daily was a necessary party who should have been joined. Daily was not a necessary party in an action for Anna Marie to recoup missing child support payments. Plus, Daily was present at the trial, but Larry did not attempt to implead him. OPINION:Gray, C..J.; Gray, Vance and Reyna, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.