in Re Connie Harrison, 14-15-00370-CV

Background

Clifford Harrison filed an amended motion to enforce possession and access alleging contempts by Connie Harrison for violations of (a) a 2010 Final Decree of Divorce (later reversed in part on appeal), (b) a January 29, 2014 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA), and (c) an April 10, 2014 Agreed Interim Order.
At the October 16, 2014 enforcement hearing relator Connie Harrison was testifying when opposing counsel moved for a directed verdict on the ground she had not filed an answer; the court granted the directed verdict and cut off her testimony.
On October 24, 2014 the trial court signed an Order of Enforcement finding multiple contempts, imposing 120 days’ confinement (suspended on conditions), awarding $25,554.30 in attorneys’ fees, and fines for individual violations.
Subsequent trial-court orders (Dec. 18, 2014; Mar. 27, 2015; Apr. 10, 2015) revoked suspension, changed payment/installment terms, or recommitted Connie to serve the 120-day term; relator sought habeas relief in this court.
Relator argued the enforcement order was void because (1) she was deprived of due process when denied completion of her testimony; (2) the MSA was not enforceable by contempt absent an express command; and (3) the Final Decree was reversed on appeal and could not support contempt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Connie)	Defendant's Argument (Clifford)	Held
Whether the directed verdict and refusal to allow relator to finish testifying violated due process	Trial court denied Connie her right to present a full defense and mitigation by cutting off testimony	Due process satisfied because Connie had testified and cross-examined witnesses	Court: Directed verdict and truncation of testimony violated due process; October 24, 2014 order void
Whether MSA violations could support contempt	MSA was not commanded by a written order with mandatory language, so cannot be enforced by contempt; some alleged MSA violations predated written incorporation	MSA was enforceable because incorporated by the Interim Agreed Order	Court: MSA was not enforceable by contempt—Interim order lacked the required command language; contempt findings based on pre-incorporation acts also invalid
Whether contempt for violating the Final Decree of Divorce was valid after appellate reversal	Cannot be held in contempt for violating a decree or portions that were reversed; reversed decree is legally null as to the reversal	Real party argued there was an oral order requiring compliance (docket entries and alleged oral pronouncements)	Court: Reversed portions of the Final Decree cannot support contempt; oral/docket entries insufficient because order must be written
Whether subsequent orders premised on the October 24, 2014 order remain valid	If the foundational October 24 order is void, derivative orders (dec. 18, mar. 27, apr. 10) are also void	Real party contended later orders and installments validated enforcement	Court: Because the October 24, 2014 order is void (due to due process and invalid bases), all subsequent orders predicated on it are void; relator discharged and bond released

Key Cases Cited

In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2013) (contempt order void if beyond court power or violates due process)
Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1983) (civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal; contemnor entitled to procedural due process)
Ex parte Holden, 190 S.W.2d 485 (Tex. 1945) (contemnor must be allowed to offer defense, evidence, and mitigation)
In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2009) (agreement incorporated without command language is not enforceable by contempt)
Ex parte Guetersloh, 935 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. 1996) (cannot be held in contempt for acts occurring before an order is reduced to writing)
Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. 1978) (order must unequivocally command performance to be enforceable by contempt)