Tim Wilson Sr. v. Frieda Wilson
14-19-00767-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background:
- Divorce decree included a written "contractual alimony" agreement: $4,000/month due 1st of each month from June 1, 2013 to May 1, 2015 (timely if direct-deposited by the 6th).
- Decree contained an acceleration clause: spouse must give written notice of intent to accelerate and allow 30 days to cure; then remaining obligation could be accelerated at obligee's election.
- Tim stopped making payments in December 2013; Frieda sent a January 2014 letter notifying intent to invoke acceleration but did not thereafter effectuate acceleration.
- Frieda filed a motion to enforce on March 26, 2019 seeking a money judgment for past-due contractual alimony, interest, attorney’s fees, costs, and contempt; the trial court treated the claim as a contract breach and applied a four-year limitations rule.
- The trial court awarded $12,000 (for March–May 2015), prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs; Tim appealed arguing Rule 91a dismissal and limitations/acceleration errors.
- The court of appeals affirmed as modified: it reversed the award of the March 2015 payment as time-barred, reversed the prejudgment-interest award for recalculation, and otherwise affirmed; modified damages to $8,000.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have dismissed Frieda’s enforcement motion under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a | Frieda contended her motion to enforce (under the Family Code) pleaded entitlement to a money judgment for missed contractual alimony | Tim argued contractual alimony cannot be enforced via an enforcement motion and sought dismissal (invoking Rule 91a) | Court overruled — Rule 91a not preserved and inapplicable to Family Code enforcement; Frieda’s pleading supported a money-judgment claim |
| Whether Frieda’s January 2014 notice accelerated the entire debt (so all claims barred by 4-year limitations) | Frieda argued she did not accelerate the debt or, alternatively, timely pursued enforcement | Tim argued the January 2014 notice constituted acceleration, starting limitations on the entire remaining balance | Court held acceleration did not occur — plaintiff gave notice of intent but did not give notice of acceleration; but March 2015 payment was nonetheless time-barred because suit filed after four years from that payment’s due date |
| Whether prejudgment interest award was proper/calculated correctly | Friedda sought interest on awarded sums | Tim argued interest on barred payment improper and challenged calculation | Court reversed and severed prejudgment-interest award and remanded for recalculation in light of reduced damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (acceleration requires notice of intent plus notice of acceleration; accrual is fact question)
- Trelltex, Inc. v. Intecx, L.L.C., 494 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (separate cause of action and limitations period for each missed periodic payment)
- Woolam v. Tussing, 54 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (motion to enforce may seek money judgment for contractual alimony even if contempt is unavailable)
- In re Green, 221 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2007) (contempt is unavailable to enforce contractual alimony)
- Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018) (wage withholding unavailable to enforce contractual alimony)
- Woody v. Woody, 429 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (post-divorce enforcement standards and appellate treatment of inferred findings)