Opinion
No. 04-17-00744-CV
04-18-2018
Andrew L. GOSS, Appellant v. Shakia GOSS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02273
Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Andrew and Shakia Goss were divorced in 2016. In January 2017, Shakia filed a motion for enforcement of the decree. On March 29, 2017, after a hearing, the trial court signed an Enforcement Order in which the court found that Andrew was in contempt for failing to pay $4,276 in child support payments. The court ordered Andrew to pay $1000 by April 28, 2017, to pay $100 per month in addition to his current child support obligation of $1,492 per month, and to comply with the provisions in the divorce decree regarding return and exchange of the children. The court ordered both parties to comply with the Loving and Caring order in the decree. Finally, the court rendered a judgment against Andrew and in favor of Shakia's attorney for attorney's fees in the amount of $1,750. Andrew did not file a timely notice of appeal from the March 29, 2017 Enforcement Order.
In September 2017, Shakia filed a "Motion to Clarify" the March 29 order. In the motion and at the subsequent hearing, Shakia argued the order was incomplete because it failed to impose any sanction or punishment for Andrew's contempt. On November 9, 2017, the trial court issued a "Clarified Enforcement Order". The November order is identical in all respects to the March order, except that it adds the following:
Respondent is committed to the Bexar County Jail for a period of 180 days for each violation.
This Court suspends commitment of jail time so long as Respondent complies with the Final Decree that obligates Respondent to continue to pay child support in the amount of $1775.00 and also returns the Children to Petitioner. Additionally, Respondent must pay $1000.00 to Petitioner no later than April 28, 2017.
Andrew filed a notice of appeal on November 9, 2017, stating he "desires to appeal all portions and enforcement of the order." After reviewing the record, this court ordered Andrew to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Andrew filed a timely response.
The contempt findings and punishment
Part of the trial court's November 9 order consists of the trial court's findings of contempt and punishment for the contempt. This court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt proceedings by direct appeal. In re Rich, 993 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Contempt orders may only be reviewed by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor's liberty has been restrained, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor has not been confined or otherwise had his liberty restrained. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); In re Rivas-Luna, 528 S.W.3d 167, 169 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding) (holding that contempt order, suspended on condition that contemnor pay child support arrearages and otherwise comply with trial court's orders should be challenged by mandamus). We therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal complaining of the contempt findings and punishment. Arrearages , attorney's fees , and orders to comply with decree
The remaining portions of the November 9 order consist of various orders and a judgment for attorney's fees, all of which were previously rendered by the trial court in the March 29, 2017 Enforcement Order. "A clarified order does not affect the finality of the order that it clarifies." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 157.421(c) (West 2014). The March 29, 2017 Enforcement Order became final and unappealable when Andrew did not timely appeal it. Other than the contempt punishment, which is addressed above, the November 9, 2017 "Clarified Enforcement Order" contains no new provisions that may now be appealed. Therefore, the appeal from the remaining portions of the November 9, 2017 order must also be dismissed.
This appeal is dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM