in Re: Thomas Mark Richardson
528 S.W.3d 155
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Thomas Richardson and Julie divorced; the nunc pro tunc decree awarded Julie reimbursement ($55,678.98), attorney’s fees ($14,079.23), and ordered Thomas to maintain a $350,000 life insurance policy naming Julie trustee-beneficiary for the children.
- Thomas was held in civil contempt for multiple violations (failure to pay the money judgment and various fees, failure to name Julie beneficiary, failure to turn over property, etc.). The court suspended an 18-month confinement contingent on compliance.
- After alleged noncompliance, the court revoked suspension and committed Thomas to jail until he purged contempt by performing several acts, including paying accumulated monthly installments/fees and producing proof that Julie was named beneficiary or proving termination of his employment.
- Thomas filed habeas corpus claiming the contempt/commitment orders were void because they imprisoned him for debt in violation of the Texas Constitution and Family Code §9.012; he also challenged ambiguities, amendment of the contempt order, and lack of attendance at the clarification hearing.
- The Court of Appeals found most contempt findings (those enforcing money judgments and non–child-support attorney’s fees) void as imprisonment-for-debt, but sustained the contempt finding tied to the life-insurance/beneficiary obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Richardson's Argument | Julie's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt commitment based on nonpayment of reimbursement judgment and attorney’s fees is void as imprisonment for debt | Commitment imprisons him for debt; §9.012 and TX Const art I §18 bar contempt to enforce money judgments/debts | Awards are part of divorce judgment and enforceable | Court: Money-judgment and attorney-fee awards (not child-support–related) are debts; contempt/commitment for those is void |
| Whether attorney’s fees in divorce decree can be enforced by contempt | Fees are a debt; cannot be enforced by contempt | Some fees incurred re: conservatorship/support could be treated as support-related and enforceable by contempt only if imposed under child-support enforcement statute | Court: Fee award here was part of property division (not under §157.167) and thus a debt; contempt enforcement void |
| Whether contempt for failing to name Julie as life insurance beneficiary is valid and enforceable by contempt | Life-insurance obligation not specifically mandated by Family Code; unclear orders | Family Code authorizes ordering obligor to obtain/maintain life insurance for children; order is clear and coercive contempt is appropriate | Court: Life-insurance contempt valid; the order was clear and enforceable; Thomas may purge by proving beneficiary designation or, if terminated, proving employment termination |
| Whether multiple contempt findings (some invalid) and post-entry clarification/amendment hearing/absence at hearing void the commitment order | Single coercive punishment for multiple contempts (including non-contempt offenses) renders entire order void; court improperly amended order and denied his presence | Commitment specified discrete purge conditions tied to each valid contempt; clarified/amended order was proper and Thomas had opportunity to seek clarification | Court: Henry distinguished; because the order sets discrete purge conditions (not one single coercive payment for all acts) and only money-related findings are void, the remaining life-insurance contempt stands; amendment/clarification and failure to attend did not render order void |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. 2005) (single coercive punishment that aggregates contempt and noncontempt debts can void commitment)
- Ex parte Hall, 854 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1993) (imprisonment for debt violates Texas Constitution)
- Ex parte Yates, 387 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1965) (confinement premised on debt is void)
- Wallace v. Briggs, 348 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1961) (attorney’s fees generally treated as debt; cannot be enforced by imprisonment)
- Ex parte Dustman, 538 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. 1976) (contempt purge conditions must be possible to perform)
- Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013) (limits on converting non–child-support fees into child-support obligations enforceable by contempt)