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:Dawn Mann sued her husband, Gregory Mann, for divorce. The trial court’s temporary orders, as well as additional interim temporary orders, required Gregory to pay $326 per month in child support retroactively from Sept. 17, 2004, to June 1, 2004. The amount was reduced to $160 per month on Jan. 20, 2005, and that order was applied retroactively to Sept. 17, 2004. On Feb. 11, Dawn filed a motion for enforcement for payments Gregory allegedly did not make under the September order. The motion contained a chart listing the date on which each payment was due, and the amount Gregory paid each month. Though the charts show $326 per month being due from June to September, and $160 being due each month from September to February, neither the chart nor the motion mentions the Jan. 20 temporary orders. At a hearing on the motion, Gregory admitted that he had made only one payment of $250. The trial court held Gregory in contempt for failing to make the Feb. 1 support payment. The trial court indicated that it could not find any other failures contumatious because of various bankruptcy filings. In a handwritten contempt judgment, the trial court specifically found that Gregory failed to comply with the Jan. 20 order by not making a $160 payment on Feb. 1. Gregory was confined to the county jail for 180 days as a punitive and coercive measure. A subsequent typewritten judgment reiterated the same findings. Gregory filed for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the contempt judgment is void, because it holds him in contempt for violating an order other than the one identified in the motion to enforce. HOLDING:Writ granted. Referring to the requirements for a motion to enforce child support, contained in Family Code 157.002, the court confirms that Dawn’s motion to enforce included a portion of the first child support order allegedly violated but not the second child support order. The court rejects the notion that the chart put Gregory on notice because 157.002 requires such a list of missed payments to include the portion of the order allegedly violated. “Under a strict analysis � even under a loose analysis,” the court writes, “the motion to enforce failed to meet the statutory notice requirements. A correct motion in this case would have alleged violations of both the first and second child support orders. Had Dawn filed a correct motion, the court finds, the trial court’s judgment would not be void. The court also finds that Gregory did not waive any complaint about her motion by failing to specifically except to the motion in the trial court. The court agrees with a case from the 14th Court of Appeals, and disagrees with a case from its own past court, and holds that someone in Gregory’s shoes need not specifically except to a defective motion to enforce to complain of lack of notice in a subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus. The language reaching a contrary conclusion in Ex parte Stephens, 734 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding), was dicta, the court concludes. OPINION:Gardner, J.; Livingston, Gardner and Walker, 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.