Layton v. Layton

Court of Appeals of Texas

Layton v. Layton

538 S.W.2d 642

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 9, 1976

Docket15450

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 538 S.W.2d 642 (Layton v. Layton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Layton v. Layton, 538 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Janet L. Layton, filed this suit in a district court of Bexar County to enforce a judgment, rendered by a court of the State of Maryland, awarding her recovery in the sum of $6,640.18, representing unpaid installments of alimony and child support which her former husband, appel-lee, Gary A. Layton, had been ordered to pay by a prior decree of a Maryland court. Appellant here complains of the refusal of the Texas court to enforce such judgment.

The trial court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, although appellant complied with the requirements of Rules 296 and 297, Tex.R.Civ.P.

The rule in this state has been that a failure of the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law where the requesting party has complied with the applicable rules constitutes reversible error, unless the record before the appellate court affirmatively reflects that the complaining party has suffered no injury. Wagner v. Riske, 142 Tex. 337, 178 S.W.2d 117 (1944). No court reporter was present during the trial of this case and we are without the benefit of a statement of facts. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that appellant has not been injured. Cooper v. Sullivan, 455 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1970, no writ).

However, since the omission may be corrected by the judge of the trial court, we conclude that, instead of reversing the judgment, the proper order is one merely directing the trial court to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law so that we may proceed as if such findings and conclusions had been timely filed. Rule 434, Tex. R.Civ.P.; 4 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 16.08.1, pp. 20-21 (1971 rev.).

Such findings and conclusions shall be certified to this Court no later than February 20, 1976.

If the trial judge finds it impossible to make such findings of fact or conclusions of law because of absence of a statement of facts, passage of time, defects of memory or other causes, then it shall certify that fact to this Court no later than February 20, 1976.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Janet L. Layton, filed this suit in a district court of Bexar County to enforce a judgment, rendered by a court of the State of Maryland, awarding her recovery in the sum of $6,640.18, representing unpaid installments of alimony and child support which her former husband, appel-lee, Gary A. Layton, had been ordered to pay by a prior decree of a Maryland court. Appellant here complains of the refusal of the Texas court to enforce such judgment.

The trial court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, although appellant complied with the requirements of Rules 296 and 297, Tex.R.Civ.P.

The rule in this state has been that a failure of the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law where the requesting party has complied with the applicable rules constitutes reversible error, unless the record before the appellate court affirmatively reflects that the complaining party has suffered no injury. Wagner v. Riske, 142 Tex. 337, 178 S.W.2d 117 (1944). No court reporter was present during the trial of this case and we are without the benefit of a statement of facts. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that appellant has not been injured. Cooper v. Sullivan, 455 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1970, no writ).

However, since the omission may be corrected by the judge of the trial court, we conclude that, instead of reversing the judgment, the proper order is one merely directing the trial court to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law so that we may proceed as if such findings and conclusions had been timely filed. Rule 434, Tex. R.Civ.P.; 4 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 16.08.1, pp. 20-21 (1971 rev.).

Such findings and conclusions shall be certified to this Court no later than February 20, 1976.

If the trial judge finds it impossible to make such findings of fact or conclusions of law because of absence of a statement of facts, passage of time, defects of memory or other causes, then it shall certify that fact to this Court no later than February 20, 1976.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 S.W.2d 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layton-v-layton-texapp-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack