Ex parte Anderson
| Decision Date | 15 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0339,95-0339 |
| Citation | 900 S.W.2d 333 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 879 Ex parte Gerald D. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Calvin C. Otte, Dallas, for relator.
Chris Westall, Willie B. DuBose, Austin, for respondent.
This is an original habeas corpus proceeding brought by Relator, Gerald D. Anderson, concerning the length of time between the trial court's pronouncement of contempt and the signing of the contempt and commitment order. Gerald and Sue Anderson were divorced in 1983. As part of the divorce, Gerald was ordered to pay monthly child support of $500 per child. After a hearing on November 10, 1994 on Sue's motion for enforcement of child support order, the trial court signed an Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support, Granting Judgment, and Commitment to County Jail. As a result, Gerald was ordered committed to the Midland County Jail until the arrearage was paid.
Gerald filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court of appeals. Concluding that the order of contempt did not specify what actions Gerald had to take to purge himself of contempt, the court of appeals granted the writ of habeas corpus and held that the order of contempt was void. 893 S.W.2d 195. In addition, the court of appeals stated that the trial court did not need to conduct another hearing before entering another contempt order as long as the defects in the November 10 order were corrected. 893 S.W.2d at 197 n. 4. In late February 1995, Sue filed a motion to sign orders. On March 14, 1995, without a hearing, the trial court signed an Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support, Granting Judgment, and Commitment to County Jail which corrected the prior defects.
Gerald argues that the order of contempt was not signed sufficiently close to the time that the trial court found that Gerald was in contempt to satisfy due process requirements. We agree.
Ex Parte Delcourt, 888 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.1994), governs this question. In Delcourt, after a hearing, the trial court found Delcourt in contempt and issued a contempt judgment and commitment order. Approximately two weeks later, while the first order was being considered by a court of appeals, the trial court issued a second contempt judgment and commitment order allegedly based on additional violations. There was no hearing in connection with the second orders. Subsequently, the court of appeals granted Delcourt's writ of habeas corpus concerning the first orders and Delcourt filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court concerning the second orders. In granting Delcourt's writ of habeas corpus, this court stated:
If that [second commitment] order be considered a new commitment, not issued under the first hearing, then it issued without notice and hearing and is void for denying Delcourt due process. Conversely, if the second commitment order issued as a result of the first contempt hearing, then no written commitment was signed sufficiently close...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cadle Company v. Lobingier
...on October 2, 1998, and recites that it supersedes the September 3, 1998 contempt judgment. Cadle and CACA rely on Ex parte Anderson, 900 S.W.2d 333, 334-35 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) and Ex parte Delcourt, 888 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding), both of which are inapposite......
-
In re Houston
...(rejecting trial court's subsequent additional contempt judgments and commitments signed weeks later); see also Ex parte Anderson, 900 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex. 1995) (holding corrected contempt and commitment order signed more than four months after contempt hearing and almost two months after......
-
In re Hammond
...Rule 329b, which limits a trial court's plenary power to alter a judgment, does not apply to contempt orders. See Ex parte Anderson, 900 S.W.2d 333, 335 n. 1 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding). Therefore, the nunc pro tunc order would not be rendered ineffective by the court's failure to sign it ......
-
In re Acevedo, No. 13-05-335-CR (TX 7/22/2005), 13-05-335-CR.
...rehearing the issue. See In re Houston, 92 S.W.3d at 878 (citing Ex parte Delcourt, 888 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. 1994); Ex parte Anderson, 900 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex. 1995). Thus, the original order was entered in violation of the statute while the modified version of the order was entered too l......