in Re Amy Williams, 01-15-00685-CV

Background

Relator Amy Williams is the child-support obligee; Real Party in Interest Harold Holmes is the obligor; Respondent is Judge Sheri Y. Dean of the 309th District Court (Harris County).
Trial court entered a Final Reformed Order on Oct. 1, 2009 adjudicating total arrearages (support, attorney’s fees, costs). This Court affirmed that judgment on May 19, 2011.
A writ of income withholding issued under that judgment had been collecting payments for ~6 years; Williams relied on those monthly payments.
On July 28, 2015, without receiving evidence or holding an evidentiary hearing, Respondent granted Holmes’s request to terminate the writ of income withholding and signed an order withdrawing it on July 31, 2015.
Holmes’s live pleading admits he still owes periodic-support arrearages and has not paid the court-ordered attorney’s fees and costs; the Family Code provides a writ may remain in effect until all arrearages, interest, fees and costs are paid.
Williams filed this emergency mandamus motion seeking immediate reinstatement of the writ (or deposit of withheld funds into the trial-court registry) pending an evidentiary hearing to determine the outstanding balance.

Issues

Issue	Williams' Argument	Holmes/Respondent's Argument	Held/Disposition in Motion
Whether the trial court may terminate a writ of income withholding while arrearages, interest, attorney’s fees, or costs remain unpaid	Williams: Family Code §158.102 bars termination until all arrearages, interest, fees and costs are paid; Holmes admits amounts remain unpaid, so termination was unlawful	Holmes asked for withdrawal believing periodic-support arrearages might be paid by reset date; Respondent withdrew writ without taking evidence	Williams asks Court to reinstate writ; court yet to rule on the emergency motion (relief sought: immediate reinstatement or deposit into registry)
Whether terminating the writ without an evidentiary hearing violated due process	Williams: Termination deprived her of a vested property/right (monthly support) without an evidentiary hearing, violating state and federal due process	Respondent terminated the writ after bench conference and docket reset, contending reset made hearing necessary later	Williams contends this was an abuse of discretion; court yet to rule on mandamus request
Whether a trial court may limit enforcement of a child-support judgment absent proof no further sums are owed	Williams: Precedent prohibits limiting enforcement or withdrawing enforcement remedies absent evidence showing no arrearages remain	Holmes/Respondent: Asserted practical reasons related to case reset and anticipated payments; no evidence presented	Williams requests writ remain in force until evidentiary determination; court yet to rule
Whether withheld wages (if reinstated) should be deposited into registry pending appeal/resolution	Williams: If wages are withheld during dispute, they should be deposited in registry to preserve funds that otherwise cannot be recaptured	Holmes: Suggested arrearages might be resolved by reset date; did not oppose deposit as an option in pleading	Williams seeks alternative order depositing withheld funds into registry; court yet to rule

Key Cases Cited

In re Reed, 901 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding) (court may grant temporary relief in original proceedings to preserve jurisdiction and status quo)
In the Interest of T.L., 316 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (writ of income withholding cannot be withdrawn absent evidentiary showing that no arrearages remain)
In re Dryden, 52 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (trial court may not limit enforcement of child-support judgment)
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) (due-process protections against deprivation of vested property rights require appropriate hearing)
Smith v. O’Neill, 813 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1991) (due-process principles apply to deprivation of vested rights)