Richard Mark Watts v. Ruth Oliver, 396 S.W.3d 124

Background

Richard Watts and Ruth Oliver married in 1996 and had a son, R.A.W., in 2003.
They divorced in 2007; Ruth planned to move with R.A.W. to Cypress, Texas, in 2008, prompting Watts to seek a change of primary custody.
Trial on modification ran Feb 28–Apr 14, 2011; the court partially granted Ruth's requests and denied Watts's request to modify primary conservatorship.
Final order issued May 24, 2011; Watts requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court did not enter.
Watts appealed alleging (i) limit on Dr. Kit Harrison’s testimony, (ii) lack of findings, (iii) attorney’s fees against him, (iv) appellate fees, and (v) sua sponte transfer to Harris County.
This court affirmed the judgment as modified, sustaining the appellate-fees issue in part and clarifying the interest timing for appellate fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Limitation on Dr. Harrison testimony	Watts contends the limitation was an excessive discovery sanction harmful to best interests evidence.	Oliver argues Watts failed to preserve the issue with an adequate offer of proof.	Issue overruled; no abuse of discretion; evidence limited was not shown to be controlling.
No findings of fact and conclusions of law signed	Watts claims the court erred by not issuing findings and conclusions.	Oliver argues Watts waived by late notice; even if preserved, Watts was not harmed.	Issue overruled; waiver applied; even if preserved, no harm shown.
Attorney’s fees to Ruth when Watts's petition not frivolous	Watts asserts §106.002 does not authorize the fee award if petition was not frivolous.	Oliver maintains the award is authorized and supported by the record and §106.002.	Issue overruled; award authorized under §106.002.
Appellate attorney’s fees advisory	Watts argues the appellate-fee award is speculative and interest rate misapplied.	Oliver argues waivers apply for appellate- fee interest; seeks proper accrual timing.	Partially sustained; clarified that interest on appellate fees accrues after the appellate judgment becomes final.
Transfer to Harris County on court's own motion	Watts asserts fundamental error and improper transfer; requests deletion of transfer order.	Oliver contends no fundamental error; transfer not properly raised or preserved as error.	Issue overruled; not fundamental error and unpreserved.

Key Cases Cited

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (abuse-of-discretion standard in best-interests determinations)
In re D.S., 76 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (broad discretion in child-related matters; standard of review)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (evidence and fee awards in family law; preservation of error)
In re C.Z.B., 151 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (admission or exclusion of evidence; abuse-of-discretion review)
Van Heerden v. Van Heerden, 321 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (discovery sanctions and preservation of error in conservatorship cases)
In re N.R.C., 94 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (sufficiency of offer of proof to preserve error; best interests standard)
Rumscheidt v. Rumscheidt, 362 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (harmful effect of missing findings; preservation in bench trial)
Apache Corp. v. Dynegy Midstream Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 214 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (appellate-fee post-judgment interest accrual timing)
Protechnics Int’l, Inc. v. Tru-Tag Sys., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (post-judgment interest on appellate fees accrual rule)
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (section 106.002 authority; direct payment to attorney permissible)