Ex parte Blanchard, C-6631
| Decision Date | 16 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. C-6631,C-6631 |
| Citation | 736 S.W.2d 642 |
| Parties | Ex parte Vernon Hugh BLANCHARD, Relator. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
David C. Gunn, Baytown, for relator.
Ron Marsh, Baytown, for respondent.
In this original habeas corpus proceeding Relator Vernon Hugh Blanchard argues that he was denied due process of law because he was not afforded proper notice of the contempt charge for which he was incarcerated. We agree and order the Relator discharged.
Vernon's incarceration results from an attempt by his ex-wife Margaret to compel delivery of certain property in his possession, but awarded to her in their divorce. On May 29, 1987, Margaret filed a Motion in Aid and Clarification and to Enforce Decree of Divorce. This motion and an order setting a hearing for June 19, 1987, were served on Vernon.
At the hearing on June 19, the court ordered Vernon to deliver several items of property to Margaret the next day, June 20. Several days later, on June 25, the Judge signed an order documenting what he had ordered at the June 19 hearing. In addition to directing Vernon to deliver items of personal property to Margaret, the order included the following provision:
It is ordered that Respondent appear in this court on June 26, 1987, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be fined or jailed or otherwise held in contempt of this court for his failure to deliver the items of personal property set out above to Margaret Blanchard at the date and time so ordered by this court.
A hearing was held on June 26, after which the Court found that Vernon had not delivered certain property, found him in contempt and committed him to jail.
Our immediate problem with the contempt order is that it was not preceded by service of an appropriate show cause order or any other appropriate method of notice. Due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order. Ex parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex.1969). In the present case there is no indication that the court issued any valid show cause order or equivalent legal process apprising the contemnor of the accusations. The hearing on June 19 and the written order of June 25, directing Vernon to appear and show cause, are insufficient for two reasons. First, assuming that the June 25 order was to serve as a show cause order, there is nothing in the record indicating service on Vernon. Vernon admits that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.A.R.
...a contempt judgment. Because the trial court did not render a contempt judgment, personal service was not required. See Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987) (stating that, in constructive contempt cases, due process requires that contemnor be personally served with show — caus......
-
Cadle Company v. Lobingier
...has been guilty of the alleged contempt. See Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding). Absent such notification, the contempt judgment is a nullity. See Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d at The 1998 con......
-
Tarrant Cty. Host. Dist. v. Henry
...be a direct relationship between offensive conduct and sanctions imposed, and sanctions must not be excessive). 98. Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987); In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2000, orig. 99. Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d at 451......
-
In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...the allegations. A contempt order rendered without adequate notification is void. Ex parte Adell , 769 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ex parte Blanchard , 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987). It is well established that constructive notice of the contempt hearing or contempt allegations is constitutionally in......