Patricia Webber and Harold Holmes v. Amy Williams
355 S.W.3d 215
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Harold Holmes and Amy Williams, married in 1965, had a child Glenna.
- A default final divorce decree (late 1960s) required Holmes to pay $10/week child support; no payments were made 1966–1978.
- In 1978 Holmes paid $1,500 lump sum, then $125/month until Glenna turned 18 in 1983.
- In 2005 Williams filed notices of child-support liens totaling about $142,090.69; notices were served on Holmes’s banks and institutions.
- In 2009 the trial court granted judgment for arrearages and allowed liens, levies, and wage withholdings; Holmes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dormancy applicability to overdue child support | Holmes argues dormancy bars arrearage judgment. | Williams argues dormancy not apply to individual overdue child support; lien remedies remain available. | Dormancy does not bar the arrearage judgment. |
| Propriety of notice of child-support lien | Holmes contends lien notice was defective for not stating method of arrearage determination. | Williams contends the final order controls; lien perfection lacking, but error harmless. | Notice defect is harmless; liens remain enforceable under statute. |
| Need for findings of fact and conclusions of law | Holmes asserts trial court abused discretion by not filing findings. | Capable issues are legal; findings were not necessary to resolve the issues on appeal. | Failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett-Dunham v. Spurgin, 245 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (dormancy may apply to individual overdue payments (per Dallas court))
- In re W.G.S., 107 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (amendment codifying prior interpretation not retroactive)
- Landerman v. State Bar of Texas, 247 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (harmless error where findings dispute-free on legal issues)
- Rollins v. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 219 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (harm from lack of findings on undisputed facts is harmless)
- MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2010) (statutory construction and de novo review on jurisdiction questions)