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:Priscilla Garza and Gary Olson filed competing motions to modify the custody provisions of their divorce decree and competing motions to enforce various provisions of the decree. The court granted Garza’s motion to modify in part, wholly denied Olson’s motion to modify, and granted each party’s motion to enforce in part. On appeal, Olson presents four issues, contending the trial court erred by: 1. failing to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law; 2. granting Garza’s motion to modify; 3. failing to render judgment in his favor for fifty percent of the children’s health care expenses not reimbursed by insurance and incurred while Olson had a temporary health insurance policy in effect; and 4. failing to hold Garza in contempt for allowing the children to remain unsupervised overnight with her extended family. HOLDING:The court affirms the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship in its entirety. It modifies the arrearages portion of the Order of Enforcement by Contempt and Suspension of Commitment rendered with respect to Olson’s second amended counter-petition for enforcement by adding $71.53 to the total arrearages confirmed in the order and affirming that order as modified. The court overrules Olson’s first (supplemental) issue. The 10th Court abated the appeal to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. After they were entered, Olson challenged their accuracy in a supplemental issue. The 10th Court found the findings of fact and conclusions of law did not conflict; the findings were specific enough that Olson did not have to guess at the reasons the court ruled against him; and stated it presumed the trial court made a finding that modification would be an improvement for the children. The court also overrules Olson’s second issue, finding that remarriage can constitute a material change of the circumstances, provided that it is offered in conjunction with proof of other statutory requisites necessary to obtain the requested modification, such as establishing that the requested modification would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 156.101. The court notes that Texas courts are split on the issue of whether remarriage can constitute a material change of circumstances. The court sustains Olson’s third issue, noting that, once a movant meets its burden of proving the amount of arrearages, the court has an affirmative duty to confirm them and reduce them to judgment. The court quotes the San Antonio Court of Appeals’ statement that a trial court is a “mere scrivener” in this situation and finds that the trial judge should not have excluded some arrearages based on the kind of insurance policy Olson procured for the children. The court dismisses Olson’s fourth issue for want of jurisdiction, stating that it does not have jurisdiction to review the denial of a contempt motion by direct appeal. OPINION:Reyna, J.; Gray, CJ, Vance and Reyna, 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.