Lisa Renee Ward v. Virgil Brent Ward
09-17-00024-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Virgil Ward obtained a final divorce decree in the 75th District Court (Aug 15, 2012) naming Lisa as primary conservator, ordering child support, spousal maintenance, and property division.
- Post-decree disputes arose: contested visitation, alleged parental alienation, disagreements over asset transfers (Edward Jones account), unpaid sums, and child support payments and credits.
- Virgil filed a petition to modify child support (May 2014) and later a motion for enforcement (Sept 2014). The 75th District Court entered an "Order Assigning Case" to the Liberty County Court at Law (Sept 22, 2014), stating the county court would have jurisdiction for all purposes.
- The County Court at Law held hearings (Dec 21, 2015; Feb 11, 2016) and: denied contempt/enforcement claims, found no arrearages, modified child support to $500/mo effective Jan 1, 2016 (order dated Feb 11, 2016 but effective Dec 21, 2015), and left other decree terms intact.
- Lisa sought to set aside the county-court orders arguing lack of jurisdiction (claiming the district court retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction), renewed enforcement motions, and appealed after the county court denied relief on Jan 4, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lisa) | Defendant's Argument (Virgil) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether County Court at Law lacked jurisdiction to modify/enforce decree | 75th District retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under Tex. Fam. Code ch. 155; assignment to county court was invalid | Local assignment to a court with concurrent jurisdiction is permitted under Gov't Code admin rules; county court has concurrent family-law jurisdiction | County Court at Law had jurisdiction; assignment was valid; Issue overruled |
| 2. Whether trial court abused discretion by retroactive modification/refusing enforcement | Modification lacked sufficient proof of changed circumstances; order was improperly made retroactive | Modification followed hearings; Lisa failed to timely appeal Feb 11, 2016 order and gave no timely legal argument on notice issue | Overruled as to retroactivity/refusal to enforce; no timely appeal of the February 11 order |
| 3. Whether trial court erred denying Lisa’s motion to enforce (Jan 4, 2017) | Trial court wrongly denied enforcement and failed to remedy alleged unpaid obligations | Trial court denied enforcement after considering motions | Overruled — Lisa waived appellate complaint by failing to brief arguments and authorities |
| 4. Whether District Court had authority to assign the case to County Court at Law | Transfer/assignment required motion/hearing under Fam. Code §155.202(b); sua sponte assignment was void | Local judicial-administration rules and Gov't Code authorize assignment within a county to a court with concurrent jurisdiction | Overruled — assignment was an administrative assignment to a court with concurrent jurisdiction and therefore valid |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Siemens Corp., 153 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (local rules may govern intra-county transfers when receiving court has jurisdiction)
- In re Nash, 13 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000) (distinguishes transfer between courts from assigning a judge of one court to hear another court’s cases)
- In re G.R.M., 45 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (chapter 155 does not prohibit district courts from assigning cases within the same county for docket equalization)