*1 proceeding divorce custody with child
property issue, any way inbe involved arrangements
with the contractual between estranged attorney. wife and her employment
contract of appellant
and the wife purpose suing was for the hardly a debt the husband husband — approve. by Cock- espoused
Under the standards
erham, supra, progeny, and its I would
hold joint there was liability properly awarded the in intervention as a community spouse
debt with each one-half from
his or her share of community. Ac-
cordingly, would reform the
dispense with the provision installment
affirm. LAREDO, Appellant,
CITY OF SOLIS, Appellee.
Luis E.
No. 04-82-00203-CV. Appeals Texas,
Court of
San Antonio.
Dec.
524 statute,
Prior 20 suspensions, which deals with give did not to an officer who had been suspended period in excess of for a not suspen- right fifteen dаys the sion to He could not de- the Commission. public mand at that The statute provided time that the Commission merely McGettrick, Anthony C. Attor- District investigate had the circum- right Office, Laredo, ney’s appellant. for surrounding if it so stances Laredo, Trigo, appellee. Sharon for art. desired. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. 1269m, C.J., (Vernon 1963). CADENA, Before and BUTTS and 20 DIAL, JJ. amended, 20 effec- section was September tive 1979. Since OPINION 1, 1979, every suspended, officer whо is
CADENA, Chief Justice. length irrespective Laredo, sion, right Appellant, appeals from a City of has absolute judgment setting the order of the public aside hear- commission and to demand a Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Service ing. stripped of The Commission has been suspend- Laredo City Commission all to determine it will discretion Solis, ing appellee, city police offi- Luis suspension. The result is that review the cer, day, ordering for one his reinstatement public now to an and a awarding $1,200.00 him with back no Commission before fees. We affirm. suspension, so depends length of the on the suspended The Chief of Police Solis for has that an officer who days patrol being operat- car three after a same days fifteen or less now has the in a by Solis involved collision. ed suspended for rights an officer who is appealed to the Civil Service Commis- Solis indefinitely. When more than 15 of section 20 of provisions sion under from the officer the Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Service required to pension, the Commission is Act, art. 1269m TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. 17 of public have “a under (Vernon Supp.1982-1983). public After a manner 17 sets out the Act.” Section hearing, entered order Commission ap- policeman in which a fireman day. reducing suspension period one which an peal to the Commission “from filed in district court then provided under the or review of the statute. under TEX. terms Service Act. See of the” Civil urged in Although §§ 1269m, art. REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. the Commission is court that order of (Vernon Supp.1982-1983). and 20 review, it subject judicial does not not decided, the At time Blanchard was question jurisdiction in its raise the brief gone to section 20 had not amendment However, in this in view of Court. ef- into effect. Under statute holding in and Policemen’s Firemen’s fect, appeal to had no the officers Civil Service Commission of therefore, was, There the Commission. Blanchard, 582 S.W.2d Fort Worth rights significant difference (Tex.1979), “disciplinary suspen- that a not suspended for had been who (a suspension not in sion” officer who more than fifteen and an days) subject excess of fifteen fifteen suspended for more than had been review, jurisdic- a discussion days. The former in this case is of the district court latter did. necessary. Commission: significance absence, respect appealability, September 1,1979, of types ture would have treated the two involving discipli in cases suspensions differently all. 552 S.W.2d nary suspensions pointed out in Fox v. at 887. Carr, (Tex.Civ.App.— legislative intent concern- search 1977, writ), Texarkana as follows: *3 1, ing appealability prior Considеring entirety, the statute in it its great Legis- required no effort. The appears been to have of the intention expressed very lature its in clear interest legislature to allow an dis to the language. disciplinary suspension A could trict only when a before plainly appealed, not be and this stated required the civil service commission is provide in which did not for an body, receiving and when that after and susрension such a to the of Commis- evidence, considering fi has rendered a circumstances, sion. such it Under would nal decision as result of that incongruous be to the attribute As no hearing before the service civil ture an intent that from a relief required commission is in the case of nary suspension might by by- obtained disciplinary suspensions, ap the intent passing appealing the Commission and di- parently was to allow no from courts, rectly facing to the while an temporary order, such a but to leave suspension more burdensome could ob- imposition of a penalty in the discre only by following tain relief the more oner- head, tion of subject only procedure seeking ous relief from the to reversal if the commission chose to taking complaint Commission before investigate disagreed actiоn with the the district court. head. of the Dictum Harris, court in City Wichita Falls v. The 1979 amendment removed the 582 S.W.2d (Tex.Civ.App — Fort types of distinction between the two sus n.r.e.) Worth supports writ ref’d pensions respect appealability. The this view. suspended officer now has the clear statute, any po- Under section 18 of the to the without refer liceman who “is dissatisfied deci- with the length ence sion of the Commission” procedure exactly the same in both filing, days, petition within ten in the short, In the only cases. basis for the “asking district court that his order sus- in which was Fox has distinction made been pension dismissal demotion set eliminated. aside, ...” This reference to orders should be that It noted Blanch distinguishing without holding not, ard the that article 1269m did disciplinary suspensions and indefinite1 amendment, authorize Fox, caused some concern to the Court disciрlinary suspensions review pro- but the Court “harmonized” all of the rests Fox and v. Attaway on Mes concluding visions of the statute that quite, (Tex.Civ.App S.W.2d 343 “suspensions,” used in refers . —Dal writ). 1978, no opinion Attaway las only to indefinite and not to attempt analyze reasoning makes statute “disciplinary” suspensions. The merely prior unpub but states that in a was that the treat intended to held, suspensions differently opinion lished in that casе it types the two Fox, regard appealability.” relying “with on that a fireman who had their why, suspended court was unable to understand for ten no statu differently treat tory right appeal. intent was not to them S.W.2d at 343. Harris, suspen Falls Wichita then becomes an fifteen (Tex.Civ.App. Apparently, day suspension Worth writ a 16 is "indef sion. — Fort said, inite,” n.r.e.), day suspension ref’d the Court "It is that a a 15 is not indefi clear while greater for a than nite. therefore, involving disciplinary suspensions, Fox is the basis for the cases holding by repealed might the Dallas court that the it have which statute gives disciplinary suspensions, deals with sus pension. governs amended section indefi- deleting suspensions by the word “in- nite makes Attaway Since no effort to ex- definitely” from the first sentence of sec- plain holding concerning statutory However, solely other than basе it limiting resulted in Fox, it is apparent Supreme impose head to nothing Court Blanchard found in the pensions only in cases where the reasoning, Attaway other than reliance employee had violated service rules. civil Fox, might persuasive called This result could have been avoided support conclusion that Blanchard rewriting more of section 16 extensive statutory no such existed. It can mаking complicated. more fairly *4 be assumed Blanchard should Instead, Legislature to the chose amend approval as of read of the rationale by merely adding right the section 20 to opinion, approved the the Fox and that it making appeal to the Commission and sec- theory right that if to appeal there was no prescribes which be- right to there no to the Commission was Commission, аpplicable to all fore the judicial argument may The Fox review. pensions. simple in as syllogistic stated form follows: argued that It can be when right If is to to appeal there the Com- was, presuma- ture amended section mission, right appeal there is no to to (the bly, holding familiar with Fox right court. There is to a district by Supreme decision Court Blanch- disciplinary suspension to Commission. down).2 yet had not handеd How- ard Therefore, is no a right there ever, predicated the Fox conclusion on If courts. the absence of the accept premise major we of the Fox involving disciplinary Commission in cases true, argument as the conclusion is valid suspensions, the amendment effective- because, decided, time that case ly holding that reason for that eliminated But, premise the minor was true. beсause general language making amendment, premise minor the 1979 “suspensions” appealable to the courts was syllogism replace of the Fox is false. we suspensions. limited to indefinite mi- premise that false minor the true with premise nor there is that It must be concluded that all decisions of disciplinary suspension to the made the Commission which are only then the valid conclusion governed by sec- аdjudicatory deliberations be drawn that there appealable tion 17 are under section now such a to district court. purpose is to set aside a demotion, since “suspension, dismissal suspensions fact that statute no makes a distinction indefinite are treated in section 20 while disciplinary suspen- indefinite and between regulated by section 17 is suspensions are sions with regard appealability.” tо their form, article irrelevant. significant distinction opinion meaning 1269m embodied a The Fox limited the suspensions and indef- “suspension” in section word suspensions by making holding applied only indefinite sus- inite that it disciplinary suspensions, pensions, appealable but not to the Commission which were right. as a matter At the time of that appealable the Commission a matter Legislature decision, reasoning provisiоn made the right. decided to When suspen- review give the Commission finally approved by handed down on both decision was 2. The amendment was The Blanchard May Legislature June 1979. branches applicable amendment, relief, sions seeking additional sions. Since City. such rea- not been served on the soning leads to the conclusion that judge signed trial January On nary suspensions appealable are to а dis- judgment ordering reinstated trict court. No other conclusion is defensi- did pay. back not contain ble. attorney’s fees. On the award of same It is true requires that section 16 day, Solis filed a motion reform such where an an indefinite sus- judgment so conform to that it would pension the Commission render a decision judgment pronounced by the court from writing, requirement and that there is no 7, 1982, January by providing the bench on of a involving written in a decision case Solis. disciplinary suspension. But it is clear that hearing April A was held require- did not consider a outset, At the the court announced that the ment that writing the decision was on the motion Solis to essential to a review the Commission January judgment. reform the 18th Dur- action by a court. decision of the ing this hearing, the announced it was Commission in subject a demotion case is urging its motion for new triаl but was judicial review, although neither section defending judgment. 18th January demotions, deals with nor other At the conclusion of statute, requires court announced that the concerning decision writing. demotion be in *5 be reformed to include award of merely provides Section 19 employ- that no $1,200.00 fees, attorney’s as and a re- may ee demoted without a judgment, containing formed the award of City The attacks award of attor signed attorney’s by fees was the trial ney’s ground fees to Solis on the that his judge April 1982. amended petition should have been stricken nothing showing There is in the record because it City was never served on the City’s that the trial court ruled on the ever that, and original petition since by filed petition motion to strike the amended filed Solis did attorney’s not seek an award of by Solis. fees, pleadings there were support such award. petition original Solis filed his on Novem- 1, 1979, petition ber and the amended The case January was set for trial on City complains July which the was filed on 1982, at which time counsel for Solis was transcript in the There is present. Although City of Laredo had 29, 1981, August signed instrument filed answer, filed an appeared no one on behalf by judge, counsel Solis and City orally and the trial court ren- City. counsel for the This instrument re- Solis, dered requir- behalf cites that Solis that he is entitled contends ing his pay reinstatement with back and to reinstatement with and to re- back awarding attorney’s fees. On the same fees, attorney’s City cover and that day, trial, City filed its motion for new contends that Solis is entitled to no relief. alleging City that counsel had not listing There is in this instrument a attended because of “his error litigat- “Issues of fact remain to be cause, in calendaring following pre- listing ed” and this includes “Reasonable trial held on December 1981.” attorney’s value of The instrument fees.” alleged The motion also that the award of concludes: $2,000.00 attorney’s fees improper as petition original pretrial filed has because order been formulat- later, day asked for no such relief. One ed after all attor- conference bеtween City neys. motion to opportunity strike the Reasonable has been petition, sought amended attorneys afforded the for corrections or fees, attorney’s copy signing. because additions This order will hereafter control the course of trial Act. The shall determine may except and not be amended con- just whether cause exists therefor. Court, parties sent of the the event the head fails to prevent order of the Court to manifest file the Commission said statement with injustice. (120) [sic] twenty within one hundred and hours, suspension shall be void and City’s the court ruled on Since never peti- employee motion shall be entitled to his full to strike the amended tion, City, salary. and since for the shall counsel The Commission effect, agreed “re- that one of issues reverse the decision of the de- litigatеd” maining to be of reason- partment head and to instruct him imme- fees, ableness of cannot attorney’s diately employee to restore such complain trial court erred in over- position repay employee ruling its motion to strike. wages. finds lost the Commission attorney’s period award of has been that the permitted by reduced, least section 18 at since 1975. order reduc- should be Leg., р. Acts 64th ch. tion in In the department head event such refuses does not here contend that obey the order of the amount awarded fees is not provisions with reference salaries reasonable. employees discharge and to the trial is af- head as well the other firmed. provisions pertaining to of Section head, such refusal of the BUTTS, Justice, Dissenting. apply. shall respectfully majority dissent. The governs Section 16 opinion emphasizes question: the central (dismissals). The differences the Firemen’s Policemen’s readily apparent. two statutes become grants Civil Service Act an officer a suspension, the Upon indefinite Chief temporary disciplinary *6 department file a state- head must written sion con- after the Civil Service Commission giving Commission the rea- ment with the § hearing pursuant ducts 17 suspеnsion copy sons for such and deliver a Act. effec- Section amended suspended employee. The to the written opinion, tive after Fire- Blanchard employee his must inform the statement men’s Service Com- & Policemen’s Civil within Commission the mission Fort Worth (Tex.1979)pro- days, must be in writ- Blanchard, ing. mandatory hearing, After the vides: Commission must render decision Disciplinary Suspensions than 30 after the writing, not less given. notice оf The written Police head of either Fire or decision must state whether power Department shall to sus- dismissal, tempo- permanent shall employee pend any officer under or dismissal, employee or rary whether discipli- supervision for jurisdiction or status position restored to his former nary purposes, periods, for reasonable department. the classified service (15)days; provided, not to exceed fifteen restored, he shall receive the amount he case, every that in pay, his full rate of that would have been file with- head shall with the Commission compensating him actual time lost hours, for the twenty (120) in one hundred and suspension. The written action, as a result of and the written statement of provide specific must notice shall, upon appeal from the statement Commission showing of the civil service hold a acts violation employee, officer or head cannot public hearing 17 of rule rules. under Section amend his written statement and ment head. There is no written decision charges, may any alleged nor violation be pleading allegations Commission. Will which occurred more than six months be- upon perfect alone be relied uphold fore the date of To district court in this kind of case? In this suspension or dismissal the Commission case also there was no further evidence shall find of a violation civil service rule or presented to substantiate what the action specific charges rules shall find the was; of the Commission there are are true. pleadings and the discussions of the attor- § Legislature When the amended 20 to neys. It can be deduced that the providе protection for the anof with provided ture would have the exact and public hearing before the procedurally proper method for provide failed paral- for of the other disciplinary suspension matters had it so § rights lel outlined 16. Other than the intended. § public hearing, Legislature ex- Legislature I believe the still intends to tended to the Commission § disciplinary suspension actions, leave disсiplinary suspension period. reduce a It is, suspensions defined the function of of less than 15 for the Commission on § appeal pursuant 20: to determine disciplinary purposes only, in the hands of just cause exists desires, heads. If he nary suspension. employee may appeal to the Commis- does, protection sion and if he has the of a Nowhere in the public hearing. section is the required to issue enables the § a written decision as in It can disciplinary processes rapidly to move with- presumed employee that the is not entitled city department disruption out of a vital § decision, to a written 17 does not so long periods pending time provide. proceedings. Had intended open up panoply appellate proce- Legis- obvious conclusion is that the lature simply sоught protect employ- employees disciplined dure to under the § ee from abuses suffered at the hands of a provisions of it would have enacted a dilatory Commission which would refuse to plain stating. amendment so I cannot read investigate or appeal. to hear his That § meaning into 20 as it is now written. employee public now has the to a I would hold that a district court has no books, subpoena with the jurisdiction hear a from the records, documents, accounts, papers, or Commission. Only witnesses. evidence submitted at the Even if attorney reasonableness of hearing may considered, perma- and a correctly is not before the court in the public proceedings nent record *7 must appeal by City, appellate be maintained. (a may, looking at the entire recоrd Determining “just cause” for a 12-page statement facts with no testimo and, nary suspension exceeding officer, ny uncomplicated pleadings, hand, rendering on the other a written deci- pretrial attorneys signed) order the deter might sion which well be the for an basis attorney might mine appeal to district court are distinct two considering one-day suspen excessive arising duties of the Commission under two order, day’s sion of one very example different An statutes. wages. Malls, McFadden v. Bresler See present this difference is offered Inc., (Tex.Civ.App.— case. Nowhere in this record is there a writ). suggest, Austin “written decision” of the Commission of jurisdiction up of the district court is of Laredo. Attached to the em- held, question. this court examine that ployee’s original petition three-day is the depart- suspension letter of notice from the TEX.R.CIV.P.