Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton
551 S.W.3d 126
| Tex. | 2018Background
- Texas historically prohibited court-ordered alimony until the Legislature enacted Family Code chapter 8 (1995) and added income-withholding enforcement provisions (2001).
- Divorce decree from Oklahoma approved an agreed spousal-maintenance arrangement between Bart and Carol Dalton; Texas court gave the decree full faith and credit.
- Bart fell behind on payments; Carol sought enforcement in Texas by (1) income withholding and (2) assignment of Bart’s retirement benefits via a QDRO.
- Neither party argued or proved that any portion of the agreed payments qualified as spousal maintenance under Texas Family Code chapter 8 in the enforcement proceedings.
- The Texas Supreme Court denied both enforcement mechanisms in this case; Justice Lehrmann concurred in the result but wrote separately to clarify when Texas law permits income withholding and QDROs to enforce maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carol) | Defendant's Argument (Bart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether income withholding is available to enforce the out‑of‑state agreed maintenance order | Income withholding should be allowed to collect arrears under the Oklahoma-approved agreement | Texas law allows income withholding only for court-ordered maintenance that qualifies under Family Code ch. 8; Carol did not prove qualification | Court: Not available here because Carol never alleged/proved chapter 8 qualification; Lehrmann: enforcing party should be allowed to prove qualification at enforcement hearing and income withholding may apply "to the extent" it matches chapter 8 limits |
| Whether a QDRO may be used to assign retirement benefits to satisfy maintenance arrears | QDRO should be permitted to satisfy arrearages because maintenance/child‑support obligations are not ordinary debts and assignment enforces a legal duty | Texas law does not authorize a QDRO to satisfy maintenance arrears when obligation is treated as a contract (and no chapter 8 qualification was shown) | Court: Trial court erred; QDRO not authorized here because Carol never showed chapter 8 maintenance. Lehrmann: Disagrees with limiting QDROs to property-division only; believes ERISA and Texas law permit QDRO enforcement of child support and chapter 8 maintenance arrears |
| Whether an enforcing party must have shown chapter 8 qualification at the divorce forum | Carol argued the Oklahoma decree suffices without relitigating Texas chapter 8 requirements | Bart argued Texas enforcement mechanisms require that obligation qualify under Texas law (chapter 8) | Held: The Court required chapter 8 qualification to support income withholding/QDRO here; Lehrmann would permit enforcement proceedings to allow proof that an out‑of‑state agreed order meets Texas chapter 8 requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Cameron, 641 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. 1982) (historic Texas ban on court‑ordered alimony discussed)
- In re Green, 221 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2007) (maintenance enforceable by contempt only if it meets chapter 8 requirements)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (QDROs are exempt from ERISA anti‑alienation and preemption provisions)
- In re Marriage of Thomas, 789 N.E.2d 821 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (retirement benefits may be assigned to satisfy maintenance/child‑support arrearages)
- Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (QDRO appropriate to enforce support arrearage)
- Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (using pension assignment to satisfy arrearages does not impermissibly modify property division)