Kim Blackston Clogston v. Curtis P. Clogston

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 27, 2015·No. 03-14-00479-CV·Published

Opinion

April 27, 2015

Case No. 03-14-00479-CV

^received N

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 7 2015 THIRD COURT OFAPPEALS, V JgFfREYD.KYLE /

KIM BLACKSTON CLOGSTON, Appellant

vs.

CURTIS P. CLOGSTON, Appellee

Appeal from Cause No 05-D-540 From the 421st Judicial District Court Of Caldwell County, Texas

APPELLEE'S BRIEF

AND

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Curtis P Clogston Pro se 1348-AHwyl23S. San Marcos, Texas 78666 Phone:512-751-0111 Fax:512-582-8428 Email: cpc@pfq.com

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

APPELLANT Kim Blackston Clogston (this is an error in appellant's brief- appellant's name was ordered to be in the court below "Kirn Clogston Blackson ")

APPELLEE Curtis P. Clogston

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AT TRIAL David K. Sergi State Bar No 18036000 P.O. Box 887, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Tel: 512-392-5010 Fax:512-392-5042 Email: david@sergilaw.com

RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY AT TRIAL Henry Newton Bell, III State Bar No 02095000 6000 N. Lamar Blvd. Ste. 210 Austin, Texas 78752 Tel: 512-458-2233 Fax: 512-458-2354

APPELLANT'S COUNSEL ON APPEAL David K. Sergi State Bar No 18036000 P.O. Box 887, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Tel: 512-392-5010 Fax:512-392-5042 Email: david@sergilaw.com

APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL Appellee \spro se, as his attorney Henry Newton Bell, III, has abandoned him without making a motion to withdraw

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity ofParties 2

Table of Contents 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statement of the Case 5

Statement Regarding Oral Argument 6

Issues Presented 6

Statement of Facts 7

Summary of the Argument 9

Arguments and Authorities 9

Conclusion 12

Prayer 12

Certificate of Service 13

Certificate of Compliance 13

Exhibit A (www.pfq.com web page) 14

Exhibit B (www.pfq.com/Malpractice.asp web page) 15

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Morales v. Morales, 195 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2006, denied).

Statutes

Tex. Fam. Code §9.003(a).

Tex. Fam. Code §9.003(b).

Tex. CPRC§ 16.003(a).

Tex. CPRC §16.051.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/domain_name (visited June 3,2014).

Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/690679/Web-site.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a direct appeal from civil cause number 05-D-540 in the 421st

Judicial District of Caldwell County. The so-called Motion to Enforce of

Appellant, Kim Blackston Clogston [sic]1 was actually an action to change the terms of a final judgment signed and filed on October 18,2006. The suit is

barred by the two-year limitations period in Family Code §9.003, and also by

Tex. CPRC §16.003(a) (two-year statute of limitations), and Tex. CPRC 16.051

(residual four-year statute of limitations). Furthermore, Appellant's action was

barred because the Court's plenary jurisdiction to modify the judgment had long

expired.

1Theoriginal divorce decree states"IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that KIM BLACKSON CLOGSTON's nameis changed to Kim Clogston Blackson"

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellee requests oral argument in this case because he believes it will

aid the Court in making its determination as to the issues presented herein.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant states as his Point of Error Number One: "Whether the Trial

Court Erred in Dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Enforce based on

Respondent's assertion the Motion was barred by limitations of Tex.Fam.Code

Ann §9.003(a) or §9.003(b)."

The issue is more properly stated as "Whether the Trial Court Erred in

Dismissing Petitioner's Motion based on Respondent's assertion this was not an

action to enforce but rather an action to modify the original divorce decree, that

it is barred by limitations contained in Family Code §9.003, Tex. CPRC

§16.003, Tex. CPRC §16.051 and that it is barred because the Court's plenary

jurisdiction had long expired."

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Appellant and Appellee entered into an Agreed Final Decree of

Divorce on October 18,2006. Appellant was awarded "the website known as

www.pfq.com except that both parties shall be entitled to utilize any unused

domain name variation or unused e-mail address associated with the site." See

Exhibit A for the home page of the website residing at www.pfq.com. Appellant

was further awarded the business known as Physicians for Quality and the

corporate entity PFQ Inc.

Appellant misstates the facts by alleging that Appellee "denied Appellant

the ability to make the necessary changes." In fact, Appellant has continued to

change the website at will since the divorce, most recently in response to

Appellee's complaint that Appellant's most recent revision named Appellee as

"Executive Director and Medical Director of Physicians for Quality" in violation

ofthe provision in the divorce decree that "wife shall remove Curtis P. Clogston

as an officer and/or agent of service"; Appellee was not able to make this change

himself because Appellant, contrary to her attorney's statement in his brief, has

exclusive control over the content ofthe website. See Exhibit B for the page

residing at www.pfq.com/Malpractice.asp that Appellant removed from her

website at Appellee's insistence.

Appellee has continued to register the domain name "www.pfq.com" and

pay registration fees for the benefit of both parties since the divorce. He

fiirthermore assisted Appellant to move her website to a different hosting server

at her request, and this move deprived Appellee of any means of control over

Appellant's website.

Appellant now apparently asks that the domain (not the website)

www.pfq.com be transferred to her name. She was not given this right in the

original decree.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court properly decided that Appellant's so-called Petition to

Enforce was really an attempt to modify an eight-year-old divorce decree long

after limitations had run and the court's plenary jurisdiction had expired. No

harm has been done to Appellant by the status quo.

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. This is not an action to enforce. In the District Court, Petitioner asked

the court to change the terms of a final judgment signed and filed on October 18,

2006. Despite the name given Petitioner's pleadings, a reading of the petition

demonstrates that Petitioner was requesting a substantial change from the decree

originally entered in 2006. Petitioner sought an order compelling the

Respondent to execute documents to transfer a World Wide Web domain. This

requirement was not in the original decree. The divorce decree made no

provision concerning the domain name except in the provision that awards the

website to the wife:

W-13. The website known as www.pfq.com, except that both parties shall be entitled to utilize any unused domain name variation or unused email address associated with the site.

The 2006 judgment did not award "the World Wide Web domain" as requested

in Petitioner's so-called Petition to Enforce in the District Court, and clearly

contemplated the continued existence ofthe domain name because the judgment

provided that domain name variations and unused email addresses associated

with www.pfq.com may be used by both parties.

la. A domain name is,

an identification string that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority or control on the Internet. Domain names are formed by the rules Domain Name System (DNS). Any name registered in the DNS is a domain name.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/domain_name (visited

June 3,2014); see also, Encyclopedia Britannica,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/690679/Web-site.

lb. The domain name, or address, is property not divided by the divorce

decree, and the divorce decree clearly contemplates that both parties have some

rights remaining in it.

2. Appellant's action is barred.

(a) A suit to enforce the division of tangible personal property in existence at the time of the decree of divorce or annulment must be filed before the second anniversary ofthe date the decree was signed... or the suit is barred.

Tex. Fam. Code §9.003(a).

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

Kim Blackston Clogston v. Curtis P. Clogston, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Kim Blackston Clogston v. Curtis P. Clogston (Kim Blackston Clogston v. Curtis P. Clogston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morales v. Morales
195 S.W.3d 188 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)