in Re Dennis J. Martinez
450 S.W.3d 157
Tex. App.2014Background
- Martinez and Pastor divorced in New York in 1995; the settlement and decree required Martinez to pay child support for D.E.M. until emancipation (age 21 or completion of four years of college, not past 22).
- D.E.M. was severely injured in 1998; Pastor later moved with D.E.M. to Texas; Martinez remained a New York resident and visited Texas only a few times.
- Pastor sought a modification in New York to extend support based on D.E.M.’s disability; New York Family Court denied relief because New York law does not provide support for adult disabled children and held the obligation ended when D.E.M. turned 21.
- After the New York denial, Pastor filed in Bexar County, Texas, seeking child support beyond the New York decree’s duration; the Texas trial court denied Martinez’s plea to the jurisdiction and special appearance and entered temporary support orders.
- Martinez petitioned for mandamus in the Fourth Court of Appeals, arguing the Texas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA because New York retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pastor) | Defendant's Argument (Martinez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas may modify or impose child support after the New York order expired | This was an original suit, not a modification, because the New York decree expired by its own terms before Pastor sued in Texas | UIFSA controls; New York issued the controlling order and retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction so Texas cannot modify or impose a new obligation | Court held Texas lacked subject matter jurisdiction; Pastor’s suit was effectively a modification and subject to UIFSA restrictions |
| Whether non-registration of the New York order in Texas permits an original action in Texas | Because the New York order was not registered in Texas, Pastor’s Texas filing is an original suit | Registration is irrelevant to whether a prior controlling order exists; UIFSA prevents circumvention by failing to register | Court held failure to register does not convert a modification into an original action; UIFSA prohibits this tactic |
| Whether Texas can modify duration of support when issuing state’s law prohibits extension | Pastor sought to rely on Texas law to extend duration for a disabled adult child | UIFSA §159.611(c),(e) prevents modification of duration if the issuing state’s law does not permit it; New York law does not allow such support | Court held Texas may not modify duration; New York law governs duration and precludes further support |
| Whether relator was entitled to mandamus to vacate trial court orders | Pastor argued Texas court had jurisdiction to proceed | Martinez argued trial court acted without subject matter jurisdiction, mandamus appropriate to prevent exercise of nonexistent jurisdiction | Court granted conditional mandamus directing the trial court to grant plea to jurisdiction and vacate temporary orders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus standard for clear abuse of discretion)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus and appellate review)
- In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1999) (trial court abuses discretion when it misstates law)
- Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Long, 401 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (UIFSA preserves a single controlling support order)
- In re T.L., 316 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (burden on non‑rendering state party to establish jurisdiction under UIFSA)
- Genther v. Genther, 579 N.Y.S.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) (New York law does not provide for support of adult disabled children)