NO. 07-08 -018 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU NE 30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E C UR TIS RAY

N ASH

_________

_________

_________

______ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
This i s a n or ig ina l habeas co rp us proceed ing throug h w hic h pet it ion er C urti s R ay Nas h cont ends that his ci v il cont empt inc ar cerati on is i ll eg al becau se he i s u nabl e to pay the s um of $45,017. 82 i n bac k c hil d s uppor t pl us cour

t cost s and attor ney

fees req uired for him to pu rg e hims elf of t he cont empt. Beca use Nas h has faile d to est abl is h al l ele ments of t he aff ir mati v e defense of i nabi li ty to pay , w e re mand him to the cus tody of t he P o tter C o u n t y S h e r i ff. T he u nde rly ing div orce de cree orde red Nash to pay $ 2 5 0 .00 per mo nth in child suppo rtthathe had habit ual ly f ail ed to pay

. As a resu ltof Nash’ s fail ure to pay

su ppor t as orde red, an orde r for enforcem ent of child supp ort obligation w as sought on beh alf of Lau ra Chr is ti an D aw n, t he mothe r of t h e c h il dren, b y

the Off ic e of the Atto rn ey Gene ra l. AtaFur ther referenc es to t he Tex as Fami ly C ode w il l hereafter be by “ § ___. ” 1 2 hear ing co nduct ed on Oct ober 11, 2007, Nas h w as hel d in cont empt for fail ure to pay four specif ic child suppo rt paymen ts. Th e cou rt se nte nced Nash to 18 0 da y s in jail for each separate a ct of c ontempt, w it h all jai l ti me to ru n conc ur re ntl y . The cour t furt her ordered Nash c o m m it t e d t o the cou nty j ail until he p aid th e sum of $45 ,01 7.8 2 in child sup port
ar re arag e, t he s um of $150.00 in attor n e y fees, and all co sts of cour t. After N ash had compl eted ser

v ing the cr imi nal contempt porti on of the sent ence, he w as not rel eased from the c ounty jai l. Su bseq uentl y , N ash filed a pe ti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us w it h the tr ial
cour t. A h ear ing on the w ri t w as hel d on Apr il 14, 2008. After hear ing the tes ti mony , t he tr ial co urt den ied the peti ti on and Nas h w as ordered bac k t o j ail

. Thereafter , on Apr il 23, 200 8, Nash f iled a pe tition for w rit of hab eas co rpus w ith this Court. W e orde red him release d on bon d pe ndin g our de term inatio n of the m erits of

Nash’s claims. Nash cont end s t hath is co ntinu ed incarcerat ion for civ il contem pt is illeg al beca use he l ack s the abil ity

to pay the money

req uired by

the cour t’ s c ommitmentorder

. A person canno t be inc ar cerated ind efini tel y for c iv il co ntempt if he l ack s t he abi li ty to per form the cond itions of

release. Ex

parte Rojo , 925 S.W .2d 654 , 655 (Tex. 1996 ). In order to avail hims elf of thi s “ ina bil ity to per form” defense, Nas h w as re q uire d t o establ is h tha t he: 1) lacked the ab ility

to provide supp ort in the am oun t orde red; 2) lacked prope rty thatcould be so ld , mort g ag ed, o r other w is e pl edg ed to rais e the needed funds; 3) att empted
unsuc ces sfull y

to bor ro w the needed funds; and 4) kn ew of no s ource from w hic h the money co uld hav e been bor ro w ed or l eg all y obta ine d. T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 157 .00 8(c) (Verno n 20 07). 13

T he reco rd before this cou rt consists of t he rep orter’s record f rom th e original w rit of hab eas co rpus he aring bef o re t he trial cou rt and th e af f idavit of Nash f iled w ith his appl ic ati on for w ri t of habeas co rp u s i n thi s C our t. The s um and s ubst ance of the testim ony and Nash ’s af f idavit i s essen tially

the sam e and ma y be su mm ariz ed a s follows: 1. Nas h work s a s a cook in a re sta urant for $6.00 per hour as par t of w ork release through th e Pot ter Coun ty Jail. 2. He w as or ig ina ll y w or ki ng 8 ho urs pe r d a y, b u t b e gan w or ki ng 12 h o u rs p e r da y a co u p le of m o n th s b e fo re th e he a rin g. 3. He has no bank

ac count s n or

does he h av e any

ca sh on hand

. 4. He ow ns no proper ty thatca n be sol d to pay the money

req uired. 5. H e k no w s o f no o ne t ha t he c an b or row t he mo ne y

from . Base d upon thi s e v ide nce, N ash ask s t his C our t t o find that he is bei ng i ll eg all y rest ra ine d and t o order

hi s rele ase. T h e O f f ic e o f t h e At t o rn e y G e n e ra l a n d t h e P o t t e r C o u n t y At t o rn e y’s O f f ic e h a ve filed a respon se to t he appl ic ati on for the w ri t w herein they al leg e tha t Nas h has fail ed to
car ry hi s b urden of proof on the iss ue of i nabi li ty to pay . Spec ific all y , bot h al leg e tha t t he
ev ide nce fails to show t h at N ash has, i n fact, att empted t o bor ro w the funds to pay

the
amo u n t o w e d

. A c c o rd i n g t o t h i s r e a s o n i n g , N a s h h a s t h e re fo re fa i l e d t o s h o w al l of the ele ments of the affirmat iv e defense setforth i n the Tex as Fami ly C ode. See §15 7.0 08(c)(3). Ana lys is o f

t h e testim ony and af

f idavit of Nash lead s to the conclusio n tha t his
s t a t e m e n tt h a th e k n o ws o f n o o n e h e c a n b o rr o w th e m o n e y f ro m a re , a tb e s t , co n c lu s o ry. T his ty pe o f

concluso ry

state me nt do es no t me et th e requ ir e m e n tof conclusively esta blishing an inab ility to pay. In re Hamm ond , 155 S .W .3d 2 22, 2 28 (Te x .Ap p.– El Paso 2004, no pet .) ( ci ti ng Ex par te R ojo , 925 S.W .2d a t 656 ). F urther , t his st atement does not ind ic ate t hat N ash act ual ly att empted t o bor ro w

the needed funds, as req uired by the4

s t a t u t e . Se e § 1 5 7

. 0 0 8 (c )( 3 ). B e c a u s e t h is in a b il it y t o p e rfo rm d e fe n s e is a n a f f ir m a t ive defense, itw as Nas h’s burden t o prov e eac h s tatut or y el ement. Con cl udi ng that Nas h has faile d to prov e the aff ir mati v e defense of hi s i nabi li ty to meet th e c o n d it ion setfor h is rele ase by the tr ial co urt, w e deny N ash’ s p eti ti on and
rema nd h im to th e custo dy of the Pot ter Coun ty She riff unt il such time as he purges himse lf of the c ontempt or

unti l further

orders o f the tr ial co urt are ent ered.

Mackey K. Hancock Ju sti ce