in the Interest of D.W.G., a Child, 391 S.W.3d 154

Background

Virginia filed a notice of application for a judicial writ of withholding seeking arrearages allegedly totaling $171,626.65.
Jim contested the amount and sought to stay the writ; multiple defenses were raised including dormancy, laches, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
The case began in Nueces County, was based on a 1970 contempt order, and was transferred to Bexar County in 2009.
Virginia moved for summary judgment on several grounds; Jim moved for partial summary judgment and to dismiss, which the trial court denied in part and granted in part.
The trial court granted Virginia’s summary judgments and ordered arrearages and attorney’s fees; Jim appealed.
The appellate court reversed in part, holding certain grounds improper and remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did failure to set a hearing bar the challenge to the writ?	Wilburn argued failure to timely secure a hearing forfeited defenses.	Wilburn argued the court had duty to set hearing; failure did not extinguish defenses.	Trial court erred; court, not obligor, must set hearing.
Is res judicata available to bars later relief based on the 1970 order?	Virginia argued 1970 order precludes later relief.	Jim asserted res judicata applies; 1970 order addressed arrears and applicable later relief could proceed.	Res judicata defense improperly granted; remanded for factual analysis.
Do 157.005(b) and the dormancy statute bar the relief sought?	Virginia asserted these time-bar defenses preclude relief.	Jim contends these defenses bar enforcement actions.	Section 157.005(b) and dormancy defenses do not bar enforcement of child-support arrearages under Chapter 158; some defenses upheld.
Is laches a valid defense in a statutory child-support withholding case?	Virginia argued laches should bar relief.	Jim argued laches is unavailable where statutory rights are involved.	Laches not available as a defense in a Chapter 158 withholding; trial court properly granted summary judgment on that defense.
Were Virginia’s no-evidence motions sufficient to dispose of all of Jim's defenses?	Virginia sought judgment on multiple defenses via no-evidence motions.	Jim argued not all defenses were addressed; some disputes remained.	No-evidence motions insufficient to dispose of all defenses; court erred in granting full relief on those defenses; remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Holmes v. Williams, 355 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (dormancy applied to child-support judgments; retroactivity considerations.)
In re R.G., 362 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (duty to set hearing on motion to stay; jurisdictional implications.)
Taylor v. Speck, 308 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (dormancy/statutory context in child-support cases.)
Burnett-Dunham v. Spurgin, 245 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (dormancy statute retroactivity discussion in context.)