Case Name: Ex parte Floyd Dale WILKINS
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1984-03-14
Citations: 665 S.W.2d 760
Docket Number: No. C-2737
Parties: Ex parte Floyd Dale WILKINS.
Judges: SPEARS, J., filed concurring opinion in which KILGARLIN, J., joins.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 665
Pages: 760–762

Head Matter:
Ex parte Floyd Dale WILKINS.
No. C-2737.
Supreme Court of Texas.
March 14, 1984.
Barfield, Kelly & Mahoney, Walter P. Mahoney, Jr., Pasadena, for relator.
Dickerson, Hamel, Early & Pennock, William L. Bowers, Jr., and James J. Hansen, Watkins & Williams, Marshall W. Watkins, Houston, for respondent.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Justice.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. Relator, Floyd Dale Wilkins, was found, by Harris County Probate Court # 2, to be in contempt of court for violating an oral order of that court which allegedly required him to deposit certain funds in Texas and not use the funds. Wilkins was fined $500 and ordered to jail for ninety days.
Wilkins contends that he cannot be held in constructive contempt for violation of this oral order, and that the order was not specific enough to comply with due process requirements.
This Court has stated:
It is an accepted rule of law that for a person to be held in contempt for disobeying a court decree, the decree must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms so that such person will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon him. [citations omitted]
Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967). This Court further recognized that:
The rights of the parties under [such an order] should not rest upon implication or conjecture, but the language declaring such rights or imposing burdens should be clear, specific and unequivocal so that the parties may not be misled thereby, [citation omitted]
Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d at 44.
The order by which Wilkins was jailed in this case was rendered orally. No written order was ever entered. No statement of facts was taken at the hearing at which the order was rendered. Thus, there is no basis for determining whether the oral order meets the requirements of Sla-vin. This State cannot be allowed to operate under a system whereby its citizens may be punished by contempt for violation of an order, the exact terms of which exist solely in the memory of the trial judge and the movants for contempt.
This Court in the case of Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tex.1978), further stated:
One who is committed to jail for civil contempt should be able to find somewhere in the record the written order, which meets the requirements of Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967). It is the written order which is entered on the minutes, which a court is directed to sign . and which evidences one's rights and duties. Oral orders are poor substitutes for the requirement of one final judgment.
See also Ex parte Ballard, 632 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1982, no writ); Ex parte Mikeska, 608 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, no writ); Ex parte Grothe, 570 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1978, no writ).
We hold the oral order rendered by the probate court, for which Wilkins was held in contempt, does not conform to the requirements set out by this Court in Sla-vin and Padrón.
The relator and his sureties are discharged.
SPEARS, J., filed concurring opinion in which KILGARLIN, J., joins.