In the Interest of M.R.T., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-23-00308-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.T., A CHILD
On appeal from the County Court at Law
of Burnet County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
This appeal is from a decision in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship
concerning M.R.T. Appellee is M.R.T.’s mother. Appellant is M.R.T.’s father who
challenges the trial court’s “Order Denying Relief,” signed on October 21, 2021.1 By what
we construe as two issues, appellant contends that the trial court failed to conduct a
hearing on his motion to modify child support, and the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of
1 To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parents as appellant and appellee.
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(a).
his motion to modify “is arbitrary, unreasonable and/or it is executed without reference to
guiding rules or principles.” We dismiss the appeal.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See City of Watauga
v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory
orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.
Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588;
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co.,
Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
If a trial court’s judgment requires future action by the trial court to settle the entire
controversy, then the judgment is not final for purposes of appeal. Wagner v. Warnasch,
295 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex.1956). Moreover, a judgment leaving issues in the case open
for later decision is interlocutory and not appealable. Hall v. City of Austin, 450 S.W.2d
838 (Tex. 1970); Beavers v. Beavers, 651 S.W.2d 52, 53 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983, no
writ). “To be final a judgment must determine the rights of the parties and dispose of all
the issues involved so that no future action by the court will be necessary in order to settle
and determine the entire controversy.” Wagner, 295 S.W.2d at 892.
II. PERTINENT FACTS
Appellee filed a motion for enforcement requesting that the trial court to order
appellant to pay his child support arrearages and to hold appellant in civil contempt and
criminal contempt of court for failing to pay the full amount of previously confirmed child
2
support arrearages and failing to pay medical support. Appellee also requested attorney’s
fees. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to modify child support and a jury demand
for the civil and criminal contempt of court allegations.
On October 5, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to enforce and
motion to modify child support, which it limited to whether to impose civil contempt,
whether to modify the child support amount, and whether to award attorney’s fees. At the
hearing, appellant argued that his change in employment status alone entitled him to
modification of the amount of child support. The trial court instructed appellant to provide
authority to support such a conclusion.
On October 21, 2021, the trial court signed the “Order Denying Relief,” finding that
a change in employment status did not “qualify as a material and substantial change in
circumstances supporting a modification of this Court’s prior order,” and it denied
appellant’s motion for temporary order in a suit to modify the parent child relationship. In
the order, the trial court stated the following:
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Order in Suit to Modify
Parent-Child Relationship is DENIED and no hearing may be set on that
motion.
....
IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that [appellant] submit to this Court any
mandatory authority case law which holds that a change in employment
status alone has been found to be a material and substantial change in
circumstances sufficient to support a modification of this Court’s prior order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that [appellant] submit said case law any time
before 5:00PM on October 29, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if [appellant] timely submits said case law
that he may set a temporary order hearing where this Court will consider
3
the said case law as well as reconsider [appellant]’s Motion for Temporary
Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if [appellant] fails to timely submit
mandatory authority case law which holds that a change in employment
status alone has been found to be a material and substantial [change]
sufficient to support a modification of this Court’s prior order, that
[appellant]’s Petition to Modify Parent-Child Relationship is DENIED.
In the event that [appellant]’s Petition to Modify Parent-Child Relationship is
DENIED and DIMISSED for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that
all relief requested in the modification proceeding and not expressly granted
is DENIED, and that this Order finally disposes of all parties and all claims
and is appealable.
On November 9, 2021, the trial court signed an order holding appellant in contempt
for failure to pay child support, granting judgment, and for commitment to county jail. In it,
the trial court again stated:
All relief requested, by [appellee’s] Motion for Enforcement of Child Support
Order, with the exception of [appellee’s] request [appellant] be held criminal
contempt, and by [appellant’s] Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for
Reconsideration which has not been expressly granted herein is denied.
This Court has expressly reserved the issue of criminal contempt as set
forth above.
This judgment, which we have also determined is not final, did not address appellant’s
motion for temporary order in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship.
On July 13, 2023, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter to appellant stating that “it
appears there is no final, appealable order,” and informed appellant that he needed to
take steps to correct the defect, if he was able to do so. In addition, the letter stated that
appellant had ten days to cure such defect, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant
has not responded to the clerk’s directives.
4
III. DISCUSSION
Although the order states that it is a final judgment, it does not conclusively dispose
of all issues in the case because it is contingent on future events. Mackie v. Mackie, 571
S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1978, writ dism’d). Specifically, it states that
appellant’s motion would be denied only if appellant “failed to timely submit mandatory
authority case law which holds that a change in employment status alone has been found
to be a material and substantial [change] sufficient to support a modification of this Court’s
prior order,” and that in the event that the trial court denies and dismisses appellant’s
petition to modify the parent-child relationship then, “IT IS ORDERED that all relief
requested in the modification proceeding and not expressly granted is DENIED, and that
this Order finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable.”
The order clarifies that the petition will only be denied if appellant fails to timely
submit authority that a change in employment status alone is enough to compel the trial
court to modify child support. The record does not reflect whether appellant complied with
that contingency. The order further sets out that it becomes final only “in the event that”
the trial court denies and dismisses appellant’s petition.
“A judgment that is to become effective only upon the happening of some future
event or contingency is ordinarily not a final judgment.” Mackie, 571 S.W.2d at 380, 380;
Dodd v. Daniel, 89 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Tex. App.—Waco 1935, no writ); Rockport Shrimp
Co-op v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 761 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1989, writ
denied) (“[I]t is improper to make a judgment conditional upon the happening of some
future event or contingency . . . .”); see also Hale v. Hale, No. 04-05-00314-CV, 2006 WL
5
166518, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 25, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.). “The
judgment must conclude the dispute so that no further questions will arise requiring
judicial determination.” McCormick Operating Co. v. Gibson Drilling Co., 717 S.W.2d 425,
426 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1986, no writ).
Here, there is nothing in the record showing that the trial court dismissed
appellant’s petition. Thus, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition would become final
upon the happening of some future event, namely that appellant failed to comply with the
timeframe of providing additional authority and on further action by the trial court, namely
dismissing appellant’s petition.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we conclude that the Order Denying Relief is not final because the
trial court did not dispose of all the issues involved so that no future action by the court
will be necessary in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. See Wagner,
295 S.W.2d at 892. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
JAIME TIJERINA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
3rd day of August, 2023.
6