in Re Amy Williams

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 14, 2015·No. 01-15-00685-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

01-15-00685-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/14/2015 11:29:19 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

No. 01-15-00685-CV

FILED IN

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/14/2015 11:29:19 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Clerk

IN RE AMY WILLIAMS,

Relator.

Original Proceeding from the 3 09"’ Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas, Hon. Sheri Y. Dean, Judge Presiding

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE TO RELATOR’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

Real Party in Interest Harold Holmes (“Holmes”) files this Real Party in

Interest’s Response to the Motion for Emergency Relief to the Relator’s Motion

for Emergency Temporary Relief filed by Relator Amy Williams (“Williams”),

and in support thereof, respectfully shows as follows.

1. On June 19, 2009, Judge Frank Rynd, of the 309” Judicial District

Court of Harris County, signed the Order, which related to the payment and

collection of child support arrearages and attomey’s fees, which is attached hereto

as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated for all purposes herein.

2. On July 17, 2009, Holmes’s attorney filed a Motion to Modtfv,

Correct, or Reform Judgment, which related to the payment and collection of child support arrearages and attomey’s fees, which is attached hereto as Exhibit

“B,” and incorporated for all purposes herein.

3. On October 1, 2009, this Court signed the Final Reformed Order,

which is the current order governing the payment and collection of child support

arrearages and attomey’s fees, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and

incorporated for all purposes herein.

4. Since 2009, the enforcement and collection methods taken by

Williams and her counsel have been an issue in this case. Following Judge Rynd’s

Order signed on June 19, 2009, William’s counsel issued a “Judicial Writ of

Income Withholding to Employer” that withheld $2,311.95 a month without the

Court’s approval of such amount, which is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to

Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, see attached Exhibit “B.” Following the

hearing on Holmes’s Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment—which

considered William’s ability to issue a withholding order for collection of child

suppoIt—Judge Rynd made specific rulings regarding the enforcement and

collection of child support arrearages and attorney’s fees in this matter in his Final

Reformed Order, specifically limiting the monthly amount to be withheld and

specific limitations on enforcing the order, see attached Exhibit “C.”

It is important to note that in both the Order, signed on June 19, 2009 and

the Final Reformed Order, Judge Rynd ordered that Williams was only given a judgment for attorney’s fees and gave Williams no authority to withhold for the

attomey’s fees awarded.

Section l58.005l(a) of the Texas Family Code, upon in which Williams

relies, states that: “In addition to an order for income to be withheld for child

support, including child support and child support arrearages, the court may render

an order that income be withheld from the disposable earning of the obligor to be

applied towards the satisfaction of any ordered attomey’s fees and costs resulting

from an action to enforce child support under this title.” Although Judge Rynd had

authority to issue a wage withholding order for attomey’s fees in this matter, per

Section l58.005l(a), the decision to allow a wage withholding order for this

purpose was at his discretion and Judge Rynd, in fact, did not order wage

withholding for attorney’s fees in this case.

5. On July 28, 2015, when counsel appeared before the Court, the

Honorable Judge Sheri Y. Dean, did not have the ability to hear this case due to the

Court’s docket on that date. In an effort to manage the Court’s docket, Judge Dean

reset this case for hearing on October 2, 2015. Also on July 28, 2015, Judge Dean

ordered that the child support withholding order be temporarily stayed until the

Court could hear this matter on October 2, 2015. Judge Dean clearly stated to

counsel that the withholding order would resume, in the event that the Court found

outstanding child support arrearages. In accordance with Judge Dean’s ruling,

Holmes’s counsel submitted two proposed orders to effectuate Judge Dean’s

ruling. The first order, signed by Associate Judge Beverly Malazzo, terminated

withholding for child support until October 2, 2015, which is attached hereto as

Exhibit “D,” and incorporated for all purposes herein. The second order, also

signed by Associate Judge Beverly Malazzo, resumes withholding for child

support on October 2, 2015, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E,” and

incorporated for all purposes herein. In the event that Judge Dean determines that

child support is owed at the October 2, 2015 hearing, the withholding order will be

in place. Williams claim that this case requires emergency relief is inaccurate

because, as the orders stand now, withholding from Holmes’s wages resumes on

October 2, 2015, unless there is ruling in Holmes’s favor by Judge Dean on that

date.

6. In the Final Reformed Order described above, Holmes was ordered to

make all payments through the Texas Child Support State Disbursement Unit, P.O.

Box 659791, San Antonio, Texas 78265-9791. The Texas Child Support

Disbursement Unit Payment Record is attached hereto as Exhibit “F,” and

incorporated for all purposes herein. This payment record shows that as of August

13, 2015, Harold Holmes has paid approximately $53,781.85 through the Texas

Child Support Disbursement Unit. Williams complains that because Holmes’s

pleadings stated, as of June 2016, there was a remaining balance the obligation remained unsatisfied. However, as of July 28, 2015, as demonstrated by Holmes’s

child support payments in the month of July (as of the date of the hearing in

question) Holmes had paid his child support obligation to Amy Williams in full.

The requested relief by Williams is to continue to garnish Holmes’s

income through a wage withholding order for attorney's fees, which is

improper and was specifically not ordered by Iudge Rynd in the Final

Reformed Order.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For all of the foregoing reasons, Real Party in Interest Harold Holmes

respectfully prays that the Court deny Relat0r’s Motion for Emergency

Temporary Relief.

Respectfiilly submitted,

FULLENWEIDER WILHITE

By: Lauren E. Waddell /s/

Lauren E. Waddell State Bar No. 24036440 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 624-4100 Facsimile: (713) 624-4141 E-mail: lwaddellgwfullenweidercom ATTORNEY FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST HAROLD HOLMES

By: /s/ John A. Ramirez John Anthony Ramirez State Bar No. oo7848o8 917 Franklin, Suite 510 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 224-9900 Facsimile: (713) 224-9903 E-mail: jaramirez.law@gmail.com ATTORNEY FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST HAROLD HOLMES

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that this response was prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font, and contains 929 words, and that this number was calculated using the word count program of Microsoft Word, which is the program that was used to prepare this document.

/s/ Lauren E. Waddell

Lauren E. Waddell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Real Party in Interesfs Response to Relator’s Motion for Emergency Relief has been served electronically via e-filing on the following counsel of record, this 14th day of August, 2015:

Honorable Sheri Y. Dean District Judge, 309'h Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas 201 Caroline, 16”‘ Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Steven A. Sinkin Andrew Ross Sinkin Law Firm 105 West Woodlawn San Antonio, Texas 78212

/s/Lauren E. Waddell Lauren E. Waddell

\ ‘

000 7 03 0.2a ‘3\/

L iiiex Cause No. 703634]

In the Interest of

I.

°’°"

D D In the District Court

Glenna Noel Holmes 3309'“ Judicial District

A Child Harris County, Texas

On December 18, 2007, came on to be hcard Amy Williams’ 0riginalAnswer and Afiinnative Relief and Request for Sanctions, Original Answer to Intervention and Request for

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re Amy Williams, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re Amy Williams (in Re Amy Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In the Interest of Davis
30 S.W.3d 609 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Tamez v. Tamez
822 S.W.2d 688 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
In the Interest of M.C.R.
55 S.W.3d 104 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Starck v. Nelson
878 S.W.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
in the Interest of D.C. and D.C., Children
180 S.W.3d 647 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)