History
  • No items yet
midpage
355 S.W.3d 215
Tex. App.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Patricia Webber and Harold Holmes v. Amy Williams
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: May 19, 2011
Citations: 355 S.W.3d 215; 2011 WL 1935955; 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3831; 01-09-00991-CV
Docket Number: 01-09-00991-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Log In
    Patricia Webber and Harold Holmes v. Amy Williams, 355 S.W.3d 215