i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 57 9- CV IN THE I NT ER EST OF E.H .G ., III and A.B .G., Children Fr om the 45th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CI -16712 Honora ble Martha T anner , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 20, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED Erubiel H. Ga

rcia appea ls an Orde r on Contempt with Findings of Fa ct and Conclusions of L aw. Al tho ug h th e or de r i s e nti tle d “ Or de r o n Co nte mpt ,” the or de r d oe s n ot f ind Er ub ie l in contempt. Instead, the or der f inds that Erubiel was or dere d to pay child support in a divorce decr ee signe d on J anuar y 1 3 , 2 0 0 4
. The orde r also finds that Erubie l was in arr ear s in the amount of $7,410.36 on J anuar

y 21, 2005. I n four issues on a ppeal, Er ubiel asser

ts: (1) the dec ree order ed the pay ment of a de bt, not child support, and contempt cannot be used t o enfor ce a debt; (2) the de cre e did not contain a cle ar, spe cifi c, an d u n am b iguous c hild support order; (3) Erubiel did not have proper notice of the contempt proc eeding s; and (4) the judgme nt does not confor m with the04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

A l t houg h i t appear s t hat appel l ee s pel l s he r name “ D ol ores , ” we wi l l us e t he s pel l i ng us ed i n t he di vor ce decr ee 1 i n t h i s opi n i on t o a v oi d c on f u s i on .

- 2- p le a d in g s . I na d d it io nto a d dr e s s in g th e me r it s o f E r u b ie l’ s is s u e s , th e appellee , De lo r e s L o p e z, 1

asser ts that Erubiel’s i ssues are barr ed by res judicata or a

re moot. We reve rse the tr ial court’s or der
and re mand the c a us e to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. B ACKG ROUND Erubiel an d D e lo r e s e n te r e d into an A g r e e me n t I n c id e n t to D iv o r c e . Se c ti o n 3
. 1 o f the Ag re e me nt, e nti tle d “ Chi ld S up po rt ,” pr ov ide d a s f oll ow s: The pa rties ag ree and stipu l at e that in lieu of c hild support to be paid by ERUBI ELH. GARCI A, beg inning D e c e mb e r 1 , 2 0 0 3 , E RU B I E L

H
. G ARCI A ag ree s to p ay the monthl y mor

tg a g e pa y me nts in t he amou nt o f $ 2, 47 0. 12 on

the pr op e rt

y located at 9510 Keith Anthony , Helotes, Te x as. The parties stipulate a nd ag ree that thi s amou nt e xce e ds any amou

nts that E RU B I EL

H. GA RCIA w ou ld b e re qu ir e d to pa y by the Court and e xce e ds the a pp lic a ble c hil d sup po rt

g uid e lin e amou

nt o f c hil d su pp or t. DEL OR ES GARCIA s ha ll b e re sp on sib le fo r p ay me nt o f a ny inc re a se in the monthly

mortg ag e pay

ment in excess of $2,470.12, whe ther such inc rea se is the result of incr ease d insurance or ad valore m taxes. The parties ag ree that DEL ORES GA RCIA w ill no t f

ile or c a us e to b e fi le d a

ny pr oc e e din g the pu

rp os e of wh ic h is , in whole or in part, to obtain child support from ERUB I ELH. GARCI A. The pa rties a g re e and sti pu late that DEL OR ES GA RCIA may fi le , pro se c ute and pa rt ic ipate in a p r o ce ed i n g t o es t ab l i s h an d en fo rc e c h i l d

s u p p o rt i nt h e e v en tt h at t h e m o rt gage p aym e n t s i nth e am o u n ts p e c i f i e d h e r e i ni nS e c t i o nH
- 1 o n9 5 1 0 K e i t hA n t h o n y, He lot e s, Te xas a

re no t ma de by

ERU B I EL

H. GA RCIA f

or the pe ri od

of tim e c omm e nc ingany

month i n w hic h E RU B I EL H. GA RCIA does no t pa y the fu ll amounts require d to satisfy the obligation to pay

the monthly

installments for the proper ty as spec ified in Sec tion H- 1 here in. Any such action to enforc e child support pa y me nt u nd e r t he state g uid e lin e s sh a ll n ot e ff e c t th e e nf

or c e a bil ity of this co n t ra ct u al p ro v i s i o n re l at i n g t o p ay m en to f t h e $ 2 , 4 7 0
. 1 2 m o n t h l y m o rt gage pay ment but the child support will be cre dited on this obli g ation. Se c tio n H -1 of

the Ag re e me nt r e fe rr e d to Er ub ie l’ s o bli g a tio n to pa

y the c ur re nt m on thl y mortg ag e pay

ment in the amount of $2,470.12 until the month following A.B .G.’s g raduation from high sc hool. Section H-1 fur ther provide d, “This debt is paid in lieu of child support.”04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 3- After providing that the periodic mortga g e pay ments in lieu of child support would end whe n the last child g raduates hig h school, marr ies, d i es , o r h as the child’s disabilities removed, the Ag ree ment stated:

I n the e ve nt DE L OR ES GA RCIA se lls the pr op e rt y loc a te d a t 95 10 Keith Anthony , Helotes, Te x as prior to the month following [A.B.G. ] ’s g raduation from high sc hool, the parties he reto a g ree that ER UB I E L H. GARCI A’s child support obligation shall be calc ulated for any rema ining y ear s of obliga tion based upon the then cur rent c hild support guidelines e stablished by the L eg islature and/or

Attorney Ge ne ra l. I n the Fina l Decr ee of

Divorce signe d on J anuar y 13, 2004, the trial cour

t incorporated the ter ms of the Ag re e me nt i nto the de c re e by re fe re nc e . T he se c tio n o f t he de c re e e nti tle d “ Chi ld Sup po rt ” pr ov ide d a s f

oll ow s: The Court finds that as pa rt of t he par

tition agr eeme nt the parties have divided responsibility

for pa y ment of debt, that as part of that ag ree ment ERUBI EL H. GARCI A is making the mortg age pay ment on the re sidence occupie d by DEL ORES GARCI A which pa y ment equals or ex ce ed s the amount requir ed to be paid a s c h il d s u

p p o rt an d e xc e e d s th e a mo un t r e qu ir e d to b e p a id p u r s u an t to the child support g uidelines. I t is acc ording ly order ed that no child support nor me dical support shall be paid by ERUBI EL H. GARCI A so long as he pa y s the mortg ag e of $ 2 , 4 7 0
. 1 2 p e r

m o n t h t o t h e p r e s e n t h o l d e r o f s u c hd e b t , G M A C M o rt g a g e C o mp an y. On J anuar

y 10, 2005, Delore s filed a motion for enfor ceme nt of child support order alleg ing that Erubiel wa s in contempt of court for failing to pay child support in the amount of $2,470.12 for November

of 2004, De cembe r of 2004, a nd J anuar y of 2005. The motion re quests the Erub iel be h el d i n co n t empt of cour t. The motion states that the total arr ear ag e at the time of filing w as $7,410.36. On J anuar

y 12, 2005, Erubiel filed a motion to m odify

the par ent-c hild re lationship. The mot ion a sse rt s, “ Th e c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he c hil dr e n o r a

pe rs on a ff e c te d b y the or de r h a ve mate ri a lly04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 4- and su bs tanti a lly

c ha ng e d s inc e the re nd iti on

of the or de r t o b e mod if

ie d, and the su pp or t pa y me nts previously

order ed should be de cre ased.” A hea ring was he ld on J anuar

y 21, 2005, befor e the Honora ble M artha Tanne r. Duringthe hear ing, the following exchang e occ urre d: Q. Ok ay . N ow , M r. Ga rc ia , y ou agreed th a t th is c hil d s up po rt – th a t th is mor tg a g e wo uld

be c hil d s uppo rt and that it c an b e e nf

or c e d b y c on te mpt , c or re c t? A. Wel l, I

a g re e d to it, but it

wa s so me thi ngthat I

did n’ t w ant t o agre e to i t beca use I didn’t fee l if was – you know, I had told Ms. Garc ia that, y ou know, Ido n’ t th ink

Ic ou ld h ave do ne it. Yo u kn ow , I do n’ t th ink Ic ou ld m a ke it. [Delores’s attorney

then begins readingfrom the pr ovision of the Ag ree ment entitled
“ Chi ld S up po rt ,” and Er

ub ie l’ s att or

ne y state d that the y sti pu late d to the langua g e in the divorce decr ee.] Q. Okay . So y ou ag ree that the mortg ag e pay ments were enfor cea

ble as your c hil d s up po rt

pa y me nt, c or re c t? A. Ye s. At the c on c lus ion

of the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt state d, “ I ’m

g oin g to f

ind that Mr . G arc ia

is i n contempt and in ar

rea rs i n the sum of $7,410.36. And I ’m g oing to a war d – g ive him 90 day s in the B e xar County Jail or un til the sum of $7 ,4 10 .3 6 is pa id, plu s th e a tto rn e y ’s fe e s o f $ 2, 01 6, wh ic h w ill also be a war ded.” A t a later

hear ing, D elore s’s attorney stated that no orde r wa s signe d ref lecting J udg e Ta nner’ s ruling a

t the J anuar

y 21, 2005 hear ing beca

use Erubiel delivered a

chec k for the total amount of the a

rre ara g e. On both J anuar

y 31, 2005 and F ebrua

ry 10, 2005, Erubiel filed a

motion for temporar

y order s stating, “ Due to a chang e in c ircumstance s, child support must be modified.” On F ebrua ry 14, 2005,04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

I n h er bri ef

, D el ores r ef

er s t o a hear i ng o n t he t emp orar y o r ders b ef ore t he H onorabl e Joe Fraz i er B r own at 2 w h ic h sh e c o n te n d s J u d g e B ro w n d e n ie d the re q u e st to te m p o ra rily re d u c e the a m o u n t o f the c h ild su p p o rt. T h e o n ly r ec or d c i t at i on pr ov i ded i n t h e br i ef ; h owe v er , i s a ci t at i on t o a dock et s h ee t en t r y . D ock et s h ee t en t r i es ar e n ot par t of the re c o rd to b e c o n sid e re d o n a p p e a l. Ne lso n v . B ritt , 2 4 1 S .W .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 5 n.1 (T e x . A p p .— D a llas 2 0 0 7 , no p e t.); s ee a ls o P a la c io s v . S ta te , N o. 04- 03- 00492- CR , 2005 W L 2085268, a t * 1 n
. 2 ( T ex . App.

— Sa n An t on i o Au g . 31, 2005, no pe t
. ) ( no t de si gnat ed f o r pub l i cat i o n).

T h e o rd e r sta te d tha t E ru b ie l a p p e a re d in p e rs o n a n d thr o u g h a n a tto rn e y o f re c o rd a n d tha t D e lo re s faile d to 3 a p p e a r a n d m a d e d e fau lt. F ro m o the r re c o rd e v id e n c e , t h is re c itatio n a p p e a rs to b e e rr o n e o u s a n d the o p p o site a c tua lly o c c u rr e d . In fa c t, the re c o rd c o n ta ins a le tter fro m E ru b ie l’s a tto rn e y a c k n o w le d g ing tha t D e lo re s’s a tto rn e y c a lled him fro m the c o u rth o u se . I n t h e lette r, E ru b ie l’s atto rn e y sta te d tha t he c o u ld no t l o c a te the no tice o f he a rin g . E ru b ie l’s at t o rney f

urt her s t at ed t hat D el o res ’ s at t o rney represent ed t hat “ t he p urpo se of t he heari ng was sim p ly to c h ange t he

- 5- Delore s filed a response requesting that the tempora ry order s be denie d beca

use the re lief re quested in t he mot ion

wa s f or fi na l or de rs no t te mpo ra

ry or de rs . 2 On Fe bruar

y 18, 2005, Erubiel filed a

motion for new trial based on the trial court’s ve rbal
ru lin g on Janu ary 21 , 2 00 5. Th e mot ion

a sse rt s, “ [d]e no min a tin g mor tg a g e pay men ts a s c hil d support is in ex cess of

the statutory

authority of any judge .” On M arc h 4, 2005, Delore s filed another motion for enfor ceme nt of child support, alleg ing that Erubiel wa s in contempt of court for failing to pay child support in the amount of $2,470.12 for Fe bruar y of 2005 and Ma

rch of 2005. The motion states that the total arr ear ag e at the time of filing was $4,940.24. A he aring on the motion wa s set for April 5, 2005. When Erubiel fa iled to appea r fo r t he he ari ng , a

c a pia s w a s is su e d f

or his arr e st. On May 16, 2005, Delore s filed an a ns we r t o the motion to modi fy that Erubiel filed on J anuar y 12, 2 0 0 5
. Sh e a ls o f

il e d a c o u n te r

p e ti ti o n to mo d if

y , r e qu e s ti n g th a t th e c h il d s u p p o rt be paid direc tly

t o De l o re s instead of the mor tga g e compa

ny beca use the re sidence had bee n sold; howeve r, the c ounterpe tition requests that the amount of the c hild support remain uncha ng ed. On May 24 , 2 0 0 5 , t he Honor able Micha el Peden sig ned an or der f inding the r equeste d modification was in the be st interest of the c hildren. The trial court g rante d the modification and 304

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

a d d re ss o f t h e p la c e to se n d c h ild su p p o rt p a ym e n ts” a n d he “a g re e d to tha t ch a n g e .”

- 6- order ed Erubie l to pay

Delore s child support in the amount of $2,47 0
. 12. The orde r oblig ated Erubiel to pay

Delore s eac h month “with t he first pay ment being due and pay able on June 1, 2004.” On J une 30, 2005, the Honor able Ma rtha Ta nner sig ned an or der setting aside the A pril 5, 2005, capia s. The trial court found that the ca pias was improvidently

issued beca

use Erubie l had a bankruptc y

pending in bankruptcy

court on that date. On Ap ri l 6, 20 06 , the Of

fi c e of the Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l f

ile d a mot ion fo r e nf or c e me nt o f c hil d
su pp or t or de r. Th e mot ion

re fe rs to th e ord er of Ma y 24 , 2 00 5, that r e qu ir e d E ru bie l to pa y c hil d support in the amount of $2,470.12 ea ch month beg inning June 1, 2004. The motion alleg es that E ru b i el h ad fa i l edt o p ay

ch i l d s u p p o rt s i n ce J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 4
. T h e m o t i o nas s er t s t h at t h e t o t al arre ar age as of Ma rch 21, 2006, w as $35,396.81. On June 7, 20 06 , E ru

bie l f ile d a pe tit ion to m od if y a sse rt ing that the c hil d s up po rt pa y me nts
wer e not in compliance with the child support g uidelines. The petition r equests t h at t h e support pay ments be dec rea sed. On J une 15, 2006, Associate J udg e James Ra usch signe d an order enfor cing the child support obligation in response to the motion filed by the Off ice of t he Attorne y

Gene ral. The order

was approve d and adopted by

the Honora

ble J oe F razier B rown on June 19, 2006. The orde r finds that Erubiel wa s order ed to pay child support in the final divorce decr ee a nd in the trial cour t’s order d at ed M ay 24, 2005. The orde r finds Erubie l in arre ars in the amount of $40,658.57, and re nders jud g me nt a g a ins t hi m in

tha t amou nt. T he or de r a lso fi nd s E ru bie l in c on te mpt

and or de rs him
c on fi ne d unti l he pa

y s $ 19 ,5 00 in a

rr e ara g e s.04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 7- O nJu n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , th e tr ia l c o u rt s ign e d a Co n d it io n a l R e le a s e an d Re s e t O r d e r , n o ti ng Erubiel had pa id $19,000. E rubiel was order ed to a ppear befor e the court on Aug ust 2, 2006. The Aug ust 2, 2006, hearingwas subseque ntly rese t for Nove mber 1, 2006. On Septemb er 1 9, 2006, Erubiel nonsuited his J une 7, 2006, motion to modify . On September 20, 2006, Er

ubiel filed a petition f

or bill of r eview c halleng ing the trial court’ s May 24, 2005 order . The orde r setting the enf orce ment cause for Nove mber 1, 2006, wa s rese t to allow the bill of review to be hear d. The bill of re view wa s hear d on Dec ember 13, 2006, and the tria l court too k th e matte r u

nd e r a dv ise me nt. On J anuar

y 5, 2007, Erubiel filed a

petition to modi fy

asser ting that c hi l d support was not
e sta bli sh e d in the fi na l de c re e , and the Ma y 24 , 20 05 or de r wa s vo id. Th e pe tit ion re qu e sts tha

t c hil d
su pp or t be se t in a c c or da nc e wi th t he c hil d s up po rt

guid e lin e s. On J anuar y 9, 2007, the t rial court signe d an orde r deny ing the bill of review. T he trial c ourt
e nte re d f ind ing s o f fa c t and

c on c lus ion s o f l aw p ri mari ly ba sin g its ru lin g on

Er ub ie l’ s f a ilure to f ile a motion for new

trial or appe al cha lleng ing the May 24, 2005 order. Erubiel appe aled the de nial of the bil l of re vie w, and thi s c ourt a ff

ir me d the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r, ho ldi ngEr ub ie l “ did no t e sta bli sh that he exerc ised due dilig ence to pr osecute all adequate leg al reme dies ag ainst the May 24, 2005, order .” In re A.G .G. , 267 S.W .3d 165 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied)
. On J anuar

y 18, 2007, Erubiel filed a motion to vacate the June 15, 2006 order . One of the g rounds asser

ted in the m otion was that the decree did not contain a child support provision and the May 24, 2005 order

was void. On J anuar

y 24, 2007, a hear ing w as held on Er ubiel’s petition to modify . At the conc lusion of the he aring , the trial cour t reduc ed the c hild support to $1,200 per month.04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 8- On April 10, 2007, a hearing was held on a mot ion to enter an order based on the J anuar y 21, 2005 hear ing. T he trial c ourt took the matter unde r adviseme nt. On Ap ri l 2 5 , 2007, the par ties appea red be fore the cour

t on a motion to si g n order . At the hea ring , the trial cour

t signe d an orde r finding that the divorce decr ee r equire d Erubiel to pay $2,470.12 in child support eac h month and that Erubiel wa s in arre ars on January 21, 2005, in the amount of $7,410.26. Erubiel filed a notice of a

ppeal se ekingto appea l the trial court’ s April 10, 2007 order based
o nt h e J an u ary

2 1 , 2 0 0 5 h ea ri n g. D I S CUS S I ON A. J urisdiction A contempt orde r is not review able by appea l. Norman v . Norman , 692 S.W .2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985). A conte mpt order may be attac ked by

a petition fo r wr it of habea s corpus (if the contemnor is conf

ined) or a petition for writ of manda mus (if no confine ment is i n v o lved). In re Office of Atty. Gen. of Tex

. , 215 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tex. A pp.—For th Worth 2007, orig . proce eding ). I f a mot ion to e nf or c e inc lud e s a

re qu e st f or bo th a c on te mpt fi nd ing and a mon e y jud g me nt f

or c hil d
su pp or t arr e arage, ana

pp e llate c ourt

ha s juri sd ic tio n to a dd

re ss t he arr e ara g e jud g me nt b e c a us e it is unrelated t o the contempt orde r. See I n re Office of Atty. Ge n. of Tex. , 21 5 S. W.3 d at 91 6; se e als o Pedregon v . Pedregon , N o. 08 -0 5- 00 23 6- CV , 2 00 5 WL 25 93 66 0, a t *1 (T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so Oc t. 13, 2005, no pet.) (me m. op.). Al tho ug h th e or de r b e inga pp e a le d in

the ins tant c a se is e nti tle d O rd e r o n Co nte mpt wi th Findings of F act a

nd Conclusions of L aw, the or der itself doe s not contain any contempt fi n d i n gs or conte mpt orders. Instead, the or d er fi n ds the provision in the divorce de cre e re lated to the04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 9- mortg ag e pay

ment is enfor cea

ble as child support and awa rds an a rre ara g e judg ment. There fore , the order itself is appea lable. Although the order

itself does not prese nt any jurisdictional problems, sever al of the issues raised in Erubiel’s brief relate t o a contempt finding or orde r. Specific ally , Erubiel’s se cond issue assert s t h at no clea

r, spec ific, and una

mbiguous orde r wa s contained in the de cre e that could be enfor ced by

contempt. Such an issue, howeve r, relates to a contempt findingwhich we do not have jurisdiction to consider. See Norman , 6 92 S.W. 2d a t 65 5; In re O

ffice of Atty. Gen. of Tex

. , 215 S.W .3d at 915-16. Simi larl y , in

Er ub iel ’s th ir d issu e he a sse rt s th a t he wa s n ot a ff or de d p ro pe r d

ue pr oc e ss beca use he ha d the “r ight to re asonable notice of e ach a lleg ed contumac ious act.” Erubiel fur ther
asser ts, “Texas courts have been ve ry strict in requiring that proper notice be give n befor e a pe rson may be held in conte mpt for ac tions done outside the prese nce of th e co u rt .” B eca

use Erubie l’s
argume nt r e late s to the no tic e that must be a ff or de d b e fo re a

pe rs on c an b e he ld i n c on te mpt

of c ourt , this iss ue also re lates to a c ontempt finding which we do not have jurisdiction to consider. Although E rubiel’s fir st issue is also couched in ter ms of using contempt to enfor ce a debt or to alter a decr ee, the argument in this section of the brief focuse s on whether the trial cour

t erre d in altering t h e dec ree by finding that the provision in the decr ee r equiringErubiel to pay the
m o rt gage p ay

m en twa s ch i l d

s u p p o rt
. T h i s al s o i s t h e c ru x o f E rub i el ’s fo u rt h i s s u e a l t h o u gh couche d in terms of whe ther the ple ading s sup p o rt the orde r. The tr ial court’s f inding that the provision in the divorce de cr ee o rd er ed the pay ment of child support wa s a pre requisite to both a
c on te mpt fi nd ingand

the a rr e ara g e jud g me nt; the re fo re , th is f ind ingis a

pp e a la ble and is the so le issue that this court has jurisdiction to address. See In re Office of Atty. Gen. of Tex. , 215 S.W .3d04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 10- a t 91 6; see also Pe dregon , 2005 WL 2593660, at *1. All other issues ra ised in Erubiel’s brie f ar e dismiss ed. B
. Re s Judi c a ta I n her br ief a

nd in a sepa

rate motion to di smiss t his appea l, Delore s asserts that the issues raised on a

ppeal a re ba rre d by res judicata. Res judicata, howe ver, is an a ffirmative defe nse which the propone nt has the burde n to plead and pr ove an d wh i ch cannot be raised f or the fir st tim e on appea l. See W

orldpeacev. Co mmis sion for L awyer Discipline , 1 8 3 S. W. 3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 8

- 5 9 ( T e x. App .— Housto n [14 th D ist .] 20 05 , p e t. d e nie d) ; Gr e go ry v . S mi th , 3 9 5 S
. W
. 2 d

9 2 1 , 9 2 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 1 96 5, wr it r e f’ d n .r .e .)
. B e c a us e De lor e s r a ise s r e s ju dic a ta fo r t he fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l, she has wa ived it. Even if Delore s had raised res judicata in the t rial court, we note that the orde r in question was base d on a rulingmade i n 2 005 and wa s the first ruling by a trial c ourt that the pr ov isi on in t he div or c e de c re e wa s e nf or c e a ble a s c hil d s up po rt
. Fr om her motion and brief , it appear s that Delore s may have intende d to argue the
a pp lic a bil ity of the “ law o f t he case ” do c tr ine rathe r t ha n r e s ju dic a ta . U nd e r t

he law o f t

he c a se doctrine, a

court of appea ls is ordinarily bound by its ini tial decision if there is a subsequent a ppeal in the same c ase. Briscoe v . Good ma rk Corp. , 102 S.W .3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003). Applying the do c tr ine , qu e sti on s of law de c ide d on a pp e a l to a c ourt of la st re so rt g ov e rn the c a se thr ou g ho ut i ts subsequent stag es. Id . Ade c isi on on an is su e by

an a pp e llate c ourt , h ow e ve r, do e s n ot a bs olute ly bar its re -consider ation on a sec ond appea l, an d t h e appli cation of the doctrine lies within the discretion of the court. Id
. I n the prior appea l arising from the underly ing divorce decre e, thi s court held that the trial court did not err

in denying a

bill of review se ekingto challeng e the trial court’s May 24, 2005 order04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 11- beca us e E ru b i el failed to ex erc ise due dilig ence to prosecute all adequate leg al re medies. In re A.G.G. , 2 67 S.W. 3d

a t 16 8. Th e on ly iss ue thi s cou rt ha s jur isd ic tio n to con sid e r in this a pp e a l is whether the trial cour

t erre d in determining that the provision in the divorce decr ee r elatingto the mortg ag e pay

ment was enforc eable as child support. This issue was not previously decide d in the
e ar l i e r a p p e a l ; t h e r e f

o r e , t h e l aw o f

t h e c a s e d o c t r i n e d o e s n o ta p p l y. Delore s’s motion to di smiss based on res judicata is denied. C. Mortg ag e Pay

ment as Child Support The only moti o np e n d in g b e f o r e th e tr ia l c o u rt o nJanu ar y 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , an d

th e b a s is f

o r the
o r d e r t h e t r i a l c o u rts u

b s e qu e n t l y

s i g n e d o nAp r i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , w a s D e l o r e s ’ s m o t i o nt o e n f o r c e . In addition to seeking to enforc e a de cre e, a pa rty may also s eek to c larify

a dec ree . SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §§ 9.008, 157.421 (Ve rnon 2006 & 2008). A trial c ourt may not, how ever , chang e the substantive provisions of a dec ree in either a clar ification order or an enf orce ment order
. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § § 9 .0 07 , 1 57 .423 (Vern on 20 06 & 20 08 ). An a tte mpt to i mpo se a

sp e c if ic obligation to pay

wher e no such obligation pr eviously exis ted is an unauthorized substantive cha ng e. In re M ar riageof W

ar d , 137 S.W .3d 910, 914 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). Any clar ification or e nforc ement order that substantively chang es a decr ee is not enfor cea ble and is void. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § § 9 .0 07 , 1 57 .4 23 (V e rn on 20 06 & 20 08 ); W

h i t m i r e v . Lill

y , No. 14-07-00993- CV, 2 008 WL 4308557, at *2 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] Aug . 28, 2008, no pe t.) (m e m. o p. ); DeGroot v . DeGroot , 260 S.W .3d 658, 664 (Tex. App
. — Da llas 2008, no pet.); Cisneros v. Cisneros , No. 13-00-187- CV, 2004 WL 210704 (Tex. A pp.—Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (me m. op.). I n gen er al, we r eview a trial court’ s ruling on a post-divorce motion for enfor ceme nt or clar ification of a divorce decr ee under a n abuse- of-discr etion standard. Gainous v.04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 12- Gainous , 2 19 S.W. 3d

97 , 1 03 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 06 , p e t. d e nie d) ; In re M arriage of M c Do na ld , 118 S.W .3d 829, 832 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied)
. I n this c ase, Erubiel contends that the trial court substantively chang ed the dec ree by finding that th e de c re e ’s re qu ir e me nt t hat he pa y the mor tg a g e pa y me nts wa s enf

or c e a ble a s c hil d s up po rt
. I n order to determine if a

substantive chang e wa s made, we must int erpr et the dec ree . When interpretinga divorc e dec ree , we a pply the g ener al rules r eg ardingthe construc tion of judgme nts. Shanks v. Treadway , 110 S.W .3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2003). J udg ments should be construed
as a w hole to harmonize and g ive ef fec t to the entire de cre e. Id . I f t he de c re e , w he n r e a d a s a

wh ole is unambiguous, the c ourt must e ffe ctuate the dec ree in the light of the literal languag e used. Id
. If the dec ree is ambig uous – that is, subject t o more than one int erpr etation – the cour t should review the re cord a long w ith the decr ee to a i d i n i n t erp re t i ng the judg ment. Id . As with other wr itten instruments, whether a

divorce decr ee is ambiguous is a que stion of law. Id
. I n this case, the divor ce de cre e wa s an ag re ed decr ee ba sed on the pa rties’ Ag ree ment I ncident to D ivorce which was incorporated into the decr ee by ref ere nce. Similar to the g ener al rules
a pp lie d in int e rp re tin g a

div or c e de c re e , w e uti lize ru le s r e latin g to t he c on str uc tio n o f c on tr a c ts when inter

pretingan ag ree d decr ee which re quire us to look t o t h e int entions of the par ties as manifested in the written ag ree ment. Milligan v. Niebuhr , 9 90 S.W. 2d 82 3, 82 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; McPhe rren v. M cPhe rren , 967 S.W .2d 485, 490 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.). I f a wr itt e n a g re e me nt i s w or de d s o t hat it can be g ive n a c e rt a in o r d e fi nit e me anin g , it is unambig uous. Milligan , 990 S.W. 2d a t 82 5; McPhe rren , 967 S.W .2d at 490. The inter pretation of an unambiguous contrac t is a question of l aw to be dete rmined by the cour t. Milligan , 990 S.W .2d at 825.04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 13- As previously

noted, the Ag ree ment I ncident to Divorc e provide d: The pa rties ag ree and stipulate that in lieu of ch ild support to be paid by ERUBIEL

H. GARC I A, b egi n n i n g De ce mb er 1 , 2 0 0 3 , E R

UB I E LH. GARCI

A ag ree s to p ay the monthl y

mor tg a g e pa y me nts in the a mou

nt of $2 ,4 70 .1 2 o n th e pr op e rt y located at 9510 Keith Anthony , Helotes, Te x as. The pa rties stipulate and ag ree that thi s amo un t exce e ds any amou nts that ERUB I EL H. GA RCIA w ou ld b e re qu ir e d to pa y by the Court and e xce e ds the a

pp lic a ble c hil d sup po rt g uid e lin e a mou nt of c hil d su pp or t. D EL OR ES G AR CI A s ha ll b e re sp on sib le f or payment of

any inc re a se in the monthly mortg ag e pay ment in excess of $2,470.12, whethe r such incr ease is the result of incr ease d insurance or ad valore m tax es. The pa rties ag ree that DEL ORES GA RCIA w ill no t fi le or c a us e to be fi le d any pr oc e e din g the purp os e of wh ic h is , in whole or in pa

rt, to obta in c hild support from ERUBI EL H. GARCI A. The pa rties a g re e and sti pu late that D EL OR ES G AR CI A may fi le , pr os e c ute and pa rt ic ipate in a p ro ce ed i n g t o es t ab l i s h an d en fo rc e c h i l d

s u p p o rt i n t h e e v en tt h at t h e m o rt gage p aym e n t s i nth e am o u n ts p e c i f i e d h e r e i ni nS e c t i o nH
- 1 o n9 5 1 0 K e i t hA n t h o n y, He lot e s, Te xas a

re no t ma de by

ERU B I EL

H. GA RCIA f

or the pe ri od

of tim e c omm e nc ingany

month i n w hic h E RU B I EL H. GARCIA d oe s n ot p ay the fu ll amounts require d to satisfy the obligation to pay

the monthly

installments for the proper ty as spec ified in Section H-1 he rein. Any such action to enfor ce c hild support pa y me nt u nd e r t he state g uid e lin e s sh a ll n ot e ff e c t th e e nf

or c e a bility of thi s co n t ra ct u al p ro v i s i o nre l at i n g t o p ay m e n t o f t h e $ 2 , 4 7 0
. 1 2 m o n t h l y m o rt gage pay ment but the child support will be cre dited on this obli g ation. ***** I n th e e ven t DE L OR ES G AR CI A s e lls the pr op e rt y loc a te d at 95 10 Ke ith Anthony , Helotes, Te x as prior to the month followin g [ A.B.G.]’s gr aduation fr om high sc hool, the parties he reto a g ree that E R UBI ELH. GARCI A’s child support obligation shall be calc ulated for any rema ining y ear s of obliga tion based upon the then cur rent c hild support guidelines e stablished by the L eg islature and/or

Attorney Ge ne ra l. I n addition, the divorce decr ee pr ovided:

The Court finds that as pa rt of the pa

rtition ag ree ment the par ties have divided responsibility for pay ment of debt, that as par

t of that ag ree ment ERUBI EL H. GARCI A is making the mo rt g ag e pay ment on the re sidence occupie d by DEL ORES GARCI A which pa y ment equal s o r ex cee ds the amount requir ed to be paid as c hild support and exceeds the a mount req u i re d t o be paid pur suant to the child support g uidelines. I t is acc ording ly order ed that no child support nor medica l support shall be paid by ERUBI EL H. GARCIA so long as he pay s the mortg ag e of $ 2 , 4 7 0
. 1 2 p e r m o n t h t o t h e p r e s e n th o l d e r o f s u c hd e b t , G M A C M o rt g a g e C o mp an y.04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

A l t ho ugh E rubiel request s t hat we d et erm i ne t hat al l s ub sequent o rders r el at i ng t o chi d s up p o r t a f t er t he January 4 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 he aring are vo i d , t ho se o rd ers a re n o t b efo re us i n t his ap p ea l so w e e xp ress no o p i nio n re ga rd i ng t ho se o rd ers. W e d o no te , ho w e v e r, tha t t h e m o tio n p e n d ing a t t h e M a y 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 he a rin g w a s a m o tio n to m o d ify, no t a m o tio n to enf o rce or cl ari f

y , and t hat E rubiel was ord ered t o p ay m o nt hl y chi l d s up p o rt pa y m ent s “wi t h t he f i rs t pa y m ent be i ng due a n d p a ya b le o n J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 4 .”
. See T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 1 5 6 .4 0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); I n r e V. M

. P. , 185 S. W
. 3d 531, 5 3 4 -3 5 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 6 , no p e t.) .

- 14- B oth the Ag re e me nt an d the de c re e un a mbi g uo us ly pr ov ide that no c hil d s up po rt wi ll b e pa id beca use Erubie l ag ree d to pay the mortg age pa

y ments. I n the eve nt Erubiel fa iled to pay the mortg ag e pay

ments, the Ag ree ment unambig uously require d Delore s to r eturn to cour t and see k a modification of the de cre e that would re quire Er ubiel to pay

child support in acc ordanc e with the g uid e lin e s. Mo re ov e r, if

De lor e s so ug ht a mod if

ic a tio n to est a

bli sh c hil d s up po rt

be c a us e the ho us e was sold, the Ag ree ment unambig uously re quired that such c hild support would be in acc ordanc e with the child support g uidelines. Ac co rd i n gly , the trial cour t’s order resulted in a substantive chang e to the dec ree making it unenforc eable and void. 4 D. J udicial Admission Delore s argues that Erubie l judicially admitted that the mortg ag e pay ments pay able unde r t

he decr ee wer e child support. Delores re fer s to Erubiel’s testimony during the J anuar

y 21, 2005 he ari ng , a nd to E ru bie l’ s su bs e qu e nt p le a din g s se e kin g a re du c tio n in

c hil d s up po rt
. Delore s’s contention that Erubiel’s testimony constituted a judicial admission is flawe d for two rea sons. First, Erubiel’s testimony is not a judicial admission; it is a quasi-judicial a dmission. Mendoza v . Fid. & Guar. Ins. Unde rwrit ers, Inc

. , 606 S.W. 2d 69 2, 69 4 ( Te x. 19 80 ); Laredo Medical Group Corp. v. Mireles , 1 55 S.W. 3d 41 7, 42 9 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 04 , p e t. d e nie d) . Q ua sij u d i ci al ad m i s s i o n s ar e m er el y s o m e e v i d en ce an d

ar e n o tco n cl u s i v e u p o n t h e p ar t y t es t i fy i n g. Me nd oz a , 60 6 S. W.2 d at 69 4; Mireles , 155 S.W .3d at 429. Second, in orde r to rise to the leve l of a judicial admission, Erubiel’s testimony would have to be a cle ar, de liberate , and unequivoc al04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 15- statement of f

act. Rege ncy A dvantage Ltd. P’ship v. B i n g o Idea- W atauga, Inc. , 936 S.W .2d 275, 27 8 ( Te x. 19 96 ); Mireles , 155 S.W .3d at 429. Erubiel’s testim ony reg arding his subjective belief about his interpre tation of the decree or t he Agr eeme nt would not constitute a judicial admission for two rea sons. First, it is not a statement of fa ct but his personal su b j ec t i v e b elief. Mireles , 155 S.W .3d at 429. Second, the inter pretation of the dec ree and the Ag ree ment is a question of law not a question of f

act. Shanks , 110 S.W .3d at 447. Delore s also relies on Er

ubiel’s pleading s reque sting a decr ease in c hild support as a judicial
a dmi ssi on

that th e pr ov isi on

in t he de c re e re qu ir inghim

to p ay the mor tgag e payme nts wa s c hil d support. We disag ree , howeve r, that Erubie l’s pleading s contain cle ar, de liberate , and unequivoc al statements of fa ct. Re

ge nc yAd v an tage Ltd

. P ’s hip , 9 3 6 S
. W
. 2 d at 2 7 8
. M o s to f E rub i el ’s p l ea d i n gs
we re ba se d o n f

ind ing s th e tr ia l court ma de wi th re g ard to t he mor tg a g e pa y me nts c on sti tut ingc hil d support and to which Er

ub i el was responding . I n the numerous plea dings that were filed, Erubie l clea rly contests the trial court’s finding that the dec ree provided for child support; however , he take s the a lte rn a tiv e po sit ion

that if c hil d s up po rt

is o rd e re d to be pa id, that chi ld s up po rt mus t be in
acc ordanc e with the child support guidelines. Even if the pl eading s are construed a s containing statements of fa ct by

Erubiel rather than r efe renc es to the trial cour t’s finding s, assertions of f act pled in the alternative are not judicial admissions. Hughes W ood Products, Inc. v . W

agner , 18 S.W .3d 202, 207-08 (Te x . 2000). Ac cording ly , we c onclude that the a lternative a ssertions Erubiel make s in h is v ari ou s p le a din g s are no t ju dic ia l a dmi ssi on s. E. Moot Delore s asserts in her

brief that Erubiel waive d the issue of t h e “c h aracter ization of the mortg ag e pay

ment” by prese nting it for the first time on appea l. The re porter’ s record fr om the04

- 08

- 00 57 9- CV

- 16- hear ing on the motion to enter and the motion for new t rial, however, revea l that the ar g uments being
ma de on a pp e a l w e re pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt
. Delore s next asser

ts that E rubiel waived his c omplaint on appea l by paying the monies owed.

“ Th e Te xas r

ule is n ot, and

ne ve r h a s b e e n, sim

ply that any

pa y me nt t ow ard

satis fy inga jud g me nt, including a voluntary one, moot s the controve rsy and wa ives the rig ht to appeal the judg ment. Miga v. Je nsen , 9 6 S
. W .3d 207, 211 (Tex. 2002). In Miga , the Texas Supreme Court noted that such a pay ment would not moot an appea l where the pay ment is made under economic dur ess implied by the threat of statutory

penalties a

nd acc ruing interest. 96 S.W.3d at 211-12. I n t h i s case , Erubiel paid the monies orde red to avoid being place d in jail for contempt. Unde r these c ircumstance s, we cannot c onclude that his pay ment makes his appe al moot. See id. ; see a l s o A l l s t a t e Ins. Co. v. Hallman , 159 S.W .3d 640, 642-43 (Te x . 2005) (noting dispute involving recove ry of attorne y ’s fe es is a live controve rsy

preve nting a

ppeal f rom bec oming moot). C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s orde r is reve rsed, a nd the ca use is rema

nded to t h e trial c ourt for f urther pr oc e e din g s. Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice