Holmes v. Williams

Appellant appeals a judgment in favor of the appellee rendering judgment for child-support arrearages, including accrued interest, and ordering that appellee be entitled to issue child-support liens, levies and writs of income withholding as remedies for the collection of unpaid child support. Texas Family Code §157.005(b) only limits jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to §157.263 (cumulative money judgments for past-due child support), it does not preclude jurisdiction here because the trial court obtained jurisdiction under §157.323 (disputes as to the amount of arrearages stated in a child-support lien). The 2009 amendment to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §34.001, codifying the judicial interpretation that dormancy does not apply to an individual, overdue child-support payment, is not unconstitutionally retroactive as it applies to this case. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, No. 01-09-00991-CV, 05-19-2011.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

Appellant, Harold Holmes, appeals a judgment in favor of appellee, Amy Williams, determining and rendering judgment for child-support arrearages, including accrued interest, and ordering that Williams be entitled to issue child-support liens, levies, and writs of income withholding as remedies for the collection of unpaid child support. Challenging on the grounds of dormancy and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Holmes contends that the trial court erred by determining and rendering judgment for child-support arrearages and ordering that Williams be entitled to the collection remedies. We conclude that dormancy is inapplicable to overdue child-support payments and that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine and render judgment for child-support arrearages and order that Williams be entitled to the collection remedies. Holmes also contends that Williams’s notice of child-support liens was improper as a matter of law and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude that any impropriety in Williams’s child-support lien or the trial court’s failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is harmless. We affirm.

Holmes v. Williams

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal