NO. 07-08-0114-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SEV ENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMAR ILLO PANELD AUGUST 6, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ In the Matter of the Marriage of JANE Y. MEIWES

and ST EPHEN E. MEIWES

_________

_________

_________

______ FROM THE 64 DISTRICTCOURT OF CAST RO COUNTY ; TH NO. A8424-0507 ; HON. ROBERT W. KINKA ID, JR., PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ M emorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C .J., and CAMPB ELL an d PIRTLE , JJ. St ep he n E. Me iw esa pp ea lsfrom th e en tryo f a p ro te cti ve o rd er . Hecl ai ms th e en try of that orde r w asi n er ro r b ec au se 1 ) t hetr ia l co urt s ho ul d ha ve g ra nt ed h issp ecia l appearance, qu ashed service , and de layed hearing the motion for such order, and 2) no notice wa s given that Cody Mei wes soug ht protection und er t he order though he was gran te d prot ecti on . We re fo rm th e orde r a nd a ffi rm it

. Issue 1 - Motionto Strike Service Through hi s first point, Meiwes effectively contends that the protective o rder is void since hewas denied due process. He purportedly was de nied due process b ecause he
wa s s er ve d wi th se ve ra l ci ta ti on s w hi ch i nf or me d him of diff

eren t h ea ri ng d at es . We overrule the i ssue.2

The record i llustrates that the trial court initiall y schedul ed Dece mber 13, 2007, as the date on which the motion would be heard. Later, that hearing was resc heduled for December 28, 2 007, and, a ccording to the sheriff’s return, Meiwes received notice of that change vi a citation served on December 13, 200 7. Thereafter, the he aring date was po stp on ed toJ an ua ry 10 , 2 00 8. C it at io n co nt ai ni ng n ot ic e of th atch an gea nd th e ne w da te
wa s s er ve d on h im o n De ce mb er 2 7, 2 00 7, a cc ordi ng toth e sh er if f’ s ret ur n. Mo re imp orta nt ly , Me iw es , th ro ug h h isco un se l, se ntth e tri al co urt’ s coo rd in at or a letter dated De cember 26, 2007 . Through it, he disclosed that on De cember 12, 2007 (the day before the firsthearing date), he received a phone ca ll from counse l for the movan t who told him that 1 ) the December 13 hearing d ate woul d be passed, 2) thoug h the he aring
wa s res ch ed ul ed fo r D ec em be r 2 8, t het ri al cou rt wo ul d beu na va il ab le , an d 3)th e ul ti ma te he ar in g da te w ou ld b e Ja nu ar y 1 0. Hecl os ed hi s mi ss iv e totheco ordi na to r byst at in g, “[ i] f th ere [si c] a he ar in g on D ec em ber 28, 2 00 7 in th e ab ov e ca se th atMr . M ei we s n ee dsto atte nd , t he n pl ea se co nt act m e im me di at ely.” He doe s n otci te u s to an yth in g of re co rd il lu strat in g th ata fte r D ec em be r 2 6, h e be li ev ed th e he ar in g wa s g oi ng to beh el d on so me da y o th er

tha n J an ua ry 1 0. Fi na ll y, M ei we s, t hrou gh h isa tto rn ey , a pp ea re d atth e Ja nu ar y 10 p ro ce ed in g. Per statute, a respond ent to an applicatio n for a protective order is entitled to receive “se rvi ce o f n ot ic e of

a n ap pl ic at io n fo r p ro te cti ve o rd er .” T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §82.043(a) (Vernon 2008 ). The n ot ice of the a pplication must “show the date, time, and p lace of he ar in g . . . .” Id

. §8 2. 04 1( a) (6 ). Gi ven th es e sta tu te s, th e ev id en ce th atth eyw ere complied with, the truism that d ue process simply requi res that notice be reasonabl y calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them theN o th in g i n d ic a te s th a t C o d y i s a m in o r. 1 3 op po rtu ni ty top re se ntth ei r o bje cti on s, Ib ra hi mv. Y oung, 253 S.W

. 3 d 79 0, 805 (Te x. Ap p. –E as tl an d 20 08 , p et . d en ie d) ; $24, 15 6 inU.S

. Curre nc y v . S ta te , 247 S.W.3d 7 39, 744 (Tex. Ap p.–Texarkana2008, no pet.), the undisputed evidence that app ellant knew of the January 10 hearing date by December 12, the undisputed evidence that Meiwes a ppeared ata nd p arti ci pa ted in th e Ja nu ar y 1 0 he ar in g vi a hi s a tto rn ey , a nd h iscu rre ntfa il ure to assert, much less i llustrate, harm, we can not but reject the compl aint before u s. Iss ue2 - In clusio n of

C od y Meiwe s a s aP

ro te cte d Pa rty As for his second compl aint, Meiwes arg ues t hat the protective order improperly included his son (Cody Meiwes) as a p rotected party though C ody did not app ly for protection. In respo nse, appel lee i nformed this court that “. . . a lthough n ot void, [the

1 order] should be modified to remove protection in favor of C ody Meiwes, a non-appl icant and non -party to the proceedi ngs.” Given the latter concessi on, we will reform t he tr ial court’s order to de lete any reference to Cody Meiwes as a protected party. The trial court’s protective order is modi fied to remove all usion to Cody Meiw es from th e sc op e of

p ro te cti on a cc orde d byth ato rd er a nd i s a ffi rme d asmo di fi ed

.
Brian Quin n Chie f Justice