Court Opinion

ID: 9410646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 19:09:34.843365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.223968
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00036-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                   IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.T., A CHILD

                  On appeal from the County Court at Law
                        of Burnet County, Texas.

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

      This appeal is from a decision in a suit affecting the parent child relationship

concerning M.R.T. Appellee is M.R.T.’s mother. Appellant is M.R.T.’s father who

challenges the trial court’s “Order Holding-Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay

Child Support, Granting Judgment, and for Commitment to County Jail,” signed on

November 9, 2021. By what we construe as one issue challenging this order, appellant

contends that the attorney’s fees awarded “are not supported by sufficient admissible
evidence necessary to grant them.”1 Appellee responds that we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal because there is not a final appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.2

                                      I.       APPLICABLE LAW

        Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See City of Watauga

v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,

195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory

orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.

Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588;

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co.,

Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

        If a trial court’s judgment requires future action by the trial court to settle the entire

controversy, then the judgment is not final for purposes of appeal. Wagner v. Warnasch,

295 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex.1956). Moreover, a judgment leaving issues in the case open

for later decision is interlocutory and not appealable. Hall v. City of Austin, 450 S.W.2d

838 (Tex. 1970); Beavers v. Beavers, 651 S.W.2d 52, 53 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983, no

writ). “To be final a judgment must determine the rights of the parties and dispose of all

the issues involved so that no future action by the court will be necessary in order to settle

and determine the entire controversy.” Wagner, 295 S.W.2d at 892.

       1 To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parents as appellant and appellee.

See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(a).
        2 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket-
equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

                                                    2
                                  II.    PERTINENT FACTS

       Here, appellee filed a motion for enforcement requesting that the trial court order

appellant to pay his child support arrearages and to hold appellant in civil contempt and

criminal contempt of court for failing to pay the full amount of previously confirmed child

support arrearages and failing to pay medical support. Appellee also requested attorney’s

fees. Specifically, in her pleading, appellee asked the judge to place appellant in jail for

criminal contempt for 180 days and then place him in jail for civil contempt “for a period

not to exceed eighteen months (total for civil and criminal contempt) or until” appellant

satisfied a trial court order to pay appellee a lump sum of $5,000. Appellee further

requested the trial court to place appellant on community supervision for ten years after

serving his contempt sentence. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to modify child

support and a jury demand for the civil and criminal contempt of court allegations.

       On October 5, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to enforce and

another motion to modify child support filed by appellant. The trial court limited the hearing

to determine whether to impose civil contempt, whether to modify the child support

amount, and whether to award attorney’s fees. At the hearing, the trial court emphasized

that it was not going to determine whether to impose criminal contempt, and it stated that

it would decide that issue later. After the hearing, on October 10, 2021, appellant filed a

motion for new trial and/or motion to reconsider informing the trial court that at the October

5, 2021 hearing, evidence of payments he had made to the Texas Office of the Attorney

General (OAG) for child support had not been offered. Specifically, appellant stated, at

the time of the hearing, he was unaware that he had made the payments and therefore

                                              3
the trial court’s order regarding contempt should be set aside. Appellant claimed that the

OAG and appellee provided “false and misleading information.” Appellant asked the trial

court to “grant a new trial or reopen the hearing held on October 5, 2021 and vacate its

current orders.”3

        The trial court held another hearing on October 19, 2021, and considered

appellant’s “new” evidence, and it took the motion “under advisement regarding what [to]

do.” On November 9, 2021, the trial court signed “Order Holding-Respondent in Contempt

for Failure to Pay Child Support, Granting Judgment, and for Commitment to County Jail,”

granting appellee’s motion for enforcement of the child support order only as to the issue

of civil contempt and attorney’s fees.4 The trial court ordered appellant to turn himself in

to the Burnet County Jail on October 22, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. However, the trial court

stipulated that if appellant paid appellee the amount of $7,030.45, he would avoid any jail

commitment. The trial court stated: “All relief requested, with the exception of Movant’s

request Respondent be held in criminal contempt, and not expressly granted is denied.

This Court has expressly reserved the issue of criminal contempt for a contested final trial

on a future date.” (Emphasis added). The trial court had previously set out in its order the

following:

        3 We note that the trial court had merely orally pronounced its ruling, and when appellant filed his

motion for new trial and/or motion to reconsider there had not been a written ruling filed in the record.
        4   The trial court noted the following:

                                                     4
       This Court has reserved the issue of criminal contempt at this time.
       [Appellee] may set a hearing to take place in person on her request for
       criminal contempt for a future date. IT IS FOUND that [appellant] was
       properly served with an Order to Appear and Show Cause for the hearing
       held on October 5, 2021, which included [appellee’s] request for both
       criminal and civil contempt. IT IS FOUND that [appellant] did not want to
       proceed on the issue of criminal contempt because he wished to confront
       his accuser in person. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [appellant] shall
       be deemed properly served with an Order to Appear for said hearing if such
       Order to Appear is served upon by through his attorney of record . . . in
       accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                     III.   ANALYSIS

       Here, the trial court’s order specifies that it has not disposed of all claims of the

litigation, namely whether to place appellant in jail for criminal contempt based on

appellant’s request not to proceed with that issue “because he wished to confront his

accuser in person.” The judgment requires future action by the trial court to settle the

entire controversy because it leaves the issue of criminal contempt open for later decision.

See Wagner, 295 S.W.2d at 892. Accordingly, we conclude that the “Order Holding-

Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support, Granting Judgment, and for

Commitment to County Jail” is not final because the order does not determine the rights

of the parties and does not dispose of all the issues involved so that no future action by

the trial court will be necessary in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.

See Wagner, 295 S.W.2d at 892. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

                                                                      JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                      Justice

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of July, 2023.

                                             5