Opinion issued November 20, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00562-CV ——————————— ROY KEITH COBLE, Appellant V. KELLY DIANNE ADAMS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 257th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2003-06447
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roy Keith Coble, challenges the trial court’s order denying his
Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance and awarding appellee, Kelly Dianne
Adams, attorney’s fees. In three issues, Coble contends that the record does not support the trial court’s judgment and the trial court erred in determining that it
was without jurisdiction to modify the underlying order and refusing to allow him
to present evidence.
We affirm.
Background
In his Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance, Coble alleged that the trial
court signed, on March 19, 2004, a “Final Divorce Decree” and, on November 17,
2006, a “Final Judgment on Post-Divorce Irrevocable Mediated Settlement
Agreement.” 1 As per Coble, the November 17, 2006 judgment ordered him to pay
$2,500 per month in spousal maintenance to Adams beginning December 15, 2006
and continuing until November 15, 2021. Coble requested that the trial court
declare the November 17, 2006 judgment void as against public policy and
terminate his spousal maintenance payments. Alternatively, he asked the trial
court to modify the amount of spousal maintenance that it had previously ordered
him to pay because “[t]here has been a material or substantial change in
circumstances since entry of the [judgment].”
1 Neither judgment is included in the appellate record.
2 In her answer, Adams asserted that the November 17, 2006 judgment was
based on an “irrevocable mediated settlement agreement,”2 dated October 9, 2006,
and she requested attorney’s fees.
The trial court held a hearing on Coble’s petition, and although he was not
present at the hearing, he was represented by counsel. The trial court then entered
judgment in favor of Adams, concluding that it had jurisdiction over the case and
the parties and “the Final Judgment on Post-Divorce Irrevocable Mediated
Statement Agreement signed by th[e] Court on November 17, 2006 is not void.” It
ordered that Coble “take nothing by way of his Petition to Modify Spousal
Maintenance . . . and that such Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance
is . . . wholly denied and dismissed.” And the trial court awarded Adams $7,500 in
attorney’s fees.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to modify spousal maintenance
for an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Lendman, 170 S.W.3d 894, 899
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); see also Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d
108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (reviewing child support order). We will reverse a trial
court’s order only if we determine, from reviewing the record as a whole, that the
trial court’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Patterson v. Brist, 236 2 A copy of the parties’ mediated settlement agreement is also not included in the appellate record.
3 S.W.3d 238, 239–40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. dism’d). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and indulge
every legal presumption in favor of its judgment. Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d
703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied).
Modification of Child Support
In three issues, Coble argues that the trial court erred in denying his Petition
to Modify Spousal Maintenance because Adams did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule
on Coble’s petition and the trial court failed to allow him to present “evidence
regarding the change of circumstances from the prior order.” Coble complains:
“In this lawsuit the court entered an order saying that [it] had no jurisdiction over
the issue. At the same time in the same order the court assessed a monetary
judgment against [Coble]. If the court had no authority, it had no authority.”
(Footnote omitted.)
In regard to his second issue, contrary to Coble’s assertions, the trial court
did not conclude that it was without jurisdiction to hear his petition and it did not
deny Coble’s petition on this basis. Instead, the trial court, in its order, specifically
stated: “The Court, after receiving evidence, finds that it has jurisdiction of this
4 case and of all the parties.” 3 Because Coble agrees with the trial court’s
determination that it had jurisdiction to hear his petition, he has raised no actual
issue or point of error for us to review regarding jurisdiction.4 See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1(f) (requiring appellant to present issues or points for review); Valadez v.
Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (appellant raises
issue when it directs reviewing court to error); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 907 (9th
ed. 2009) (defining “issue” as “[a] point in dispute”); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
1275 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “point of error” as “[a]n alleged mistake by a lower
court asserted as a ground for appeal”). Thus, we are unable to conclude, as Coble
asserts, that the trial court “abused its discretion when [it] entered an order denying
the requested modification on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction.”
We overrule Coble’s second issue.
In regard to his first issue, although Coble argues that the trial court erred in
denying his Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance because the “evidence is not
3 At the hearing on Coble’s petition, the trial court did not indicate in any way that it was without jurisdiction to hear his petition. 4 We note that Coble presents no argument as to the propriety of the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring appellant to present cogent argument to support issue); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“In the review of a civil case, the appellate court has no discretion to consider an issue not raised in the appellant’s brief . . . .”); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (issue not presented for appellate review when no discussion in body of brief and no citation to supporting authority).
5 sufficient to support the judgment,” he does not provide support for his argument.
Instead, he merely states: “The evidence must support the judgment for each of the
relied upon pleadings and elements of both the cause of action and the relief sought
and within the authority of the Court. [Coble] would contend the record below
supports neither the dismissal nor the judgment for attorney[’s] fees.” (Footnote
omitted.) Similarly, in regard to his third issue, although Coble asserts that the trial
court erred in not allowing “his counsel to present evidence of the nature and
extent of issues forming the basis of his requested relief,” he does not provide any
support for his assertion. Rather, he merely states that “[t]he court acted based
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion issued November 20, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00562-CV ——————————— ROY KEITH COBLE, Appellant V. KELLY DIANNE ADAMS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 257th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2003-06447
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roy Keith Coble, challenges the trial court’s order denying his
Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance and awarding appellee, Kelly Dianne
Adams, attorney’s fees. In three issues, Coble contends that the record does not support the trial court’s judgment and the trial court erred in determining that it
was without jurisdiction to modify the underlying order and refusing to allow him
to present evidence.
We affirm.
Background
In his Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance, Coble alleged that the trial
court signed, on March 19, 2004, a “Final Divorce Decree” and, on November 17,
2006, a “Final Judgment on Post-Divorce Irrevocable Mediated Settlement
Agreement.” 1 As per Coble, the November 17, 2006 judgment ordered him to pay
$2,500 per month in spousal maintenance to Adams beginning December 15, 2006
and continuing until November 15, 2021. Coble requested that the trial court
declare the November 17, 2006 judgment void as against public policy and
terminate his spousal maintenance payments. Alternatively, he asked the trial
court to modify the amount of spousal maintenance that it had previously ordered
him to pay because “[t]here has been a material or substantial change in
circumstances since entry of the [judgment].”
1 Neither judgment is included in the appellate record.
2 In her answer, Adams asserted that the November 17, 2006 judgment was
based on an “irrevocable mediated settlement agreement,”2 dated October 9, 2006,
and she requested attorney’s fees.
The trial court held a hearing on Coble’s petition, and although he was not
present at the hearing, he was represented by counsel. The trial court then entered
judgment in favor of Adams, concluding that it had jurisdiction over the case and
the parties and “the Final Judgment on Post-Divorce Irrevocable Mediated
Statement Agreement signed by th[e] Court on November 17, 2006 is not void.” It
ordered that Coble “take nothing by way of his Petition to Modify Spousal
Maintenance . . . and that such Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance
is . . . wholly denied and dismissed.” And the trial court awarded Adams $7,500 in
attorney’s fees.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to modify spousal maintenance
for an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Lendman, 170 S.W.3d 894, 899
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); see also Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d
108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (reviewing child support order). We will reverse a trial
court’s order only if we determine, from reviewing the record as a whole, that the
trial court’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Patterson v. Brist, 236 2 A copy of the parties’ mediated settlement agreement is also not included in the appellate record.
3 S.W.3d 238, 239–40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. dism’d). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and indulge
every legal presumption in favor of its judgment. Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d
703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied).
Modification of Child Support
In three issues, Coble argues that the trial court erred in denying his Petition
to Modify Spousal Maintenance because Adams did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule
on Coble’s petition and the trial court failed to allow him to present “evidence
regarding the change of circumstances from the prior order.” Coble complains:
“In this lawsuit the court entered an order saying that [it] had no jurisdiction over
the issue. At the same time in the same order the court assessed a monetary
judgment against [Coble]. If the court had no authority, it had no authority.”
(Footnote omitted.)
In regard to his second issue, contrary to Coble’s assertions, the trial court
did not conclude that it was without jurisdiction to hear his petition and it did not
deny Coble’s petition on this basis. Instead, the trial court, in its order, specifically
stated: “The Court, after receiving evidence, finds that it has jurisdiction of this
4 case and of all the parties.” 3 Because Coble agrees with the trial court’s
determination that it had jurisdiction to hear his petition, he has raised no actual
issue or point of error for us to review regarding jurisdiction.4 See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1(f) (requiring appellant to present issues or points for review); Valadez v.
Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (appellant raises
issue when it directs reviewing court to error); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 907 (9th
ed. 2009) (defining “issue” as “[a] point in dispute”); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
1275 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “point of error” as “[a]n alleged mistake by a lower
court asserted as a ground for appeal”). Thus, we are unable to conclude, as Coble
asserts, that the trial court “abused its discretion when [it] entered an order denying
the requested modification on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction.”
We overrule Coble’s second issue.
In regard to his first issue, although Coble argues that the trial court erred in
denying his Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance because the “evidence is not
3 At the hearing on Coble’s petition, the trial court did not indicate in any way that it was without jurisdiction to hear his petition. 4 We note that Coble presents no argument as to the propriety of the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring appellant to present cogent argument to support issue); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“In the review of a civil case, the appellate court has no discretion to consider an issue not raised in the appellant’s brief . . . .”); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (issue not presented for appellate review when no discussion in body of brief and no citation to supporting authority).
5 sufficient to support the judgment,” he does not provide support for his argument.
Instead, he merely states: “The evidence must support the judgment for each of the
relied upon pleadings and elements of both the cause of action and the relief sought
and within the authority of the Court. [Coble] would contend the record below
supports neither the dismissal nor the judgment for attorney[’s] fees.” (Footnote
omitted.) Similarly, in regard to his third issue, although Coble asserts that the trial
court erred in not allowing “his counsel to present evidence of the nature and
extent of issues forming the basis of his requested relief,” he does not provide any
support for his assertion. Rather, he merely states that “[t]he court acted based
solely upon the pleadings and the argument of counsel” and “denied [him] due
process and an opportunity to be heard and present his position through the
presentation of sworn testimony.”
An appellant’s brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. TEX.
R. APP. P. 38.1(i). “This requirement is not satisfied by conclusory statements.”
Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2011, no pet.). A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or cite
appropriate authority waives the complaint. Id.; Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851,
854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of
6 Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Here, Coble, in his brief, does not provide us with a clear and concise
argument, substantive analysis, or appropriate citations to authorities and the
record to support his sufficiency argument. His conclusory statements, which
simply state that there is no evidence to support the judgment, are not enough. See
In re D.J.W., 394 S.W.3d 210, 223 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet.
denied) (failure to provide legal argument in brief to support challenge to legal and
factual sufficiency of evidence waived issue); Vogt, 373 S.W.3d at 75 (sufficiency
issue waived when “brief contain[ed] three conclusory statements . . . each of
which essentially says there was no evidence of damages”); see also Tesoro
Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“Rule 38 requires [appellant] to provide us
with such discussion of the facts and the authorities relied upon . . . to maintain the
point at issue. This is not done by merely uttering brief conclusory statements,
unsupported by legal citations.” (internal citations omitted)).
In regard to his third issue, Coble has also not offered any legal analysis or
citations to appropriate authorities and the record to support his due process
argument. See Huey, 200 S.W.3d at 854 (holding appellant waived due process
contentions due to inadequate briefing); Cervantes-Peterson, 221 S.W.3d at 255
7 (appellant presented nothing for court to review when due process argument not
properly briefed).
Accordingly, we hold that Coble has waived his first and third issues due to
inadequate briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am.
Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court may deem points
of error waived due to inadequate briefing).
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Terry Jennings Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.