Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
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:Cynthia Morris hired Florida-based Supportkids (formerly Child Support Enforcement Inc.) to collect past-due child support. Under the contract Morris signed with Supportkids, Morris would retain 67 percent of any amounts recovered, while Supportkids would retain 33 percent. Supportkids did reclaim the owed child support by placing a withholding order on the other parent’s wages. Six months after the withholding order was secured, Morris tried to cancel her contract with Supportkids so that she could retain 100 percent of what was collected. When Supportkids refused, Morris sued on the ground that Supportkids engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Morris sought to certify a class that would include other people who had contracted with Supportkids to collect child support arrearages. She alleged that the class would include customers for whom Supportkids had hired an attorney to perform legal services. The trial court granted the motion to certify, and Supportkids appeals that determination. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court focuses on the elements of typicality and adequacy of representation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), noting that typicality on the part of the named representative helps insure the adequacy of the representation. The court agrees that in this case, some aspect of the adequacy component are satisfied: the zeal and competence of the named representative’s counsel is not question, nor is the willingness of the named representative to participate in and control litigation. The court, however, finds there is potential antagonism within the class. Morris seeks to have the contracts declared void, because Supportkids allegedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The chance remains, however, that customers of Supportkids do not want their contracts to be declared void. Although Morris is now receiving child support pursuant to wage withholding, other persons who signed contracts with Supportkids may continue to need the services of Supportkids to recover child support. The court acknowledges that Supportkids did not present any proof of actual antagonism; the burden is on Morris to prove that certification is proper. The court then focuses on the class certification elements of commonality and predominance of common issues. The court first notes that the contracts attached to Morris’ petition do not all contain clauses permitting Supportkids to retain an attorney to collect child support. Further, there was testimony at the hearing on class certification that even after an attorney is retained, legal services are not always performed. “Therefore, even if Morris were able to prove that Supportkids’ retention of an attorney constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, some members of the class would not obtain relief. Morris, therefore, failed the commonality requirement of Rule 42(a).” OPINION:Seymore, J.; Hedges, C.J., Fowler and Seymore, JJ. CONCURRENCE:Fowler, J. “I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I write separately because I believe a more obvious, fundamental reason exists for reversing the order. Bereft of details � the glue that allows this type of order to withstand the inevitable challenges � the order lacks what it needs most to survive judicial scrutiny.” The concurrence faults the trial court for making on conclusory statements without supporting data in its certification statement.

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.