Kendall v. Kendall
340 S.W.3d 483
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Two former spouses dispute enforcement and modification of a New York divorce decree governing child support and future matters in Texas.
- Stipulations in New York defined private school funding via two college-driven trusts and future support to transition at age 18.
- Texas proceedings (1998/1999, 2004/2005, 2008/2009) progressively enforced and/or modified the New York judgment.
- Trial court found misrepresentations about college-trust funds and ordered enforcement measures, including trust funding adjustments and life-insurance substitutes.
- 2009 reform order (court-ordered $2,000 monthly support with a 5% step-down at DK’s emancipation, plus private-school tuition and enforcement mechanisms) led to this direct appeal.
- Court held Texas court had jurisdiction to enforce and modify the New York judgment and affirmed the 2009 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIFSA registration and consent gave Texas jurisdiction | Kendall: registration or consent defects void jurisdiction | Kendall: registration/consent satisfied; TX validly exercised jurisdiction | TX had subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce/modify the New York judgment |
| Whether the 1999 and 2005 orders were void for lack of proper jurisdiction | Kendall: orders void due to UIFSA defects | Kim: consents and registration satisfied; orders valid | No, 1999 and 2005 orders not void; jurisdiction valid |
| Whether the 2009 Reform Final Order was a modification beyond needs or a permissible enforcement | Kendall: order improperly increased needs and included lump-sum changes | Kim: orders reasonable to meet proven needs and enforce NY judgment | Order upheld as proper modification/enforcement under UIFSA; within trial court discretion |
| Whether the HK college-trust funding constitutes modification or enforcement | Kendall: lump-sum into trust creates new obligation | Kim: enforcement of existing NY obligation via trust funding | Enforcement; not a new modification; supported by NY judgment and stipulations |
| Whether findings under §154.130 and trust-resource treatment were properly handled | Kendall: lack of §154.130 findings and improper net-resources calculation | Kim: findings and calculations adequate; harmless error if any | Findings deemed sufficient; any errors harmless; no reversal on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction and standards for jurisdictional challenges)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (statutory prerequisites—jurisdictional vs. procedural as to registration)
- Longhurst v. Clark, No. 01-07-00226-CV, 2008 WL 3876175 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]) (UIFSA registration as prerequisite; not jurisdictional)
- Alfonso v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52 (Tex.2008) (consent/recitals and jurisdictional presumptions in modification orders)
- Roosth v. Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (scope of findings and respect for guidelines when resources exceed threshold)