Ex parte Chandler
| Citation | 580 S.W.2d 12 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 17390,17390 |
| Parties | Ex parte John W. CHANDLER, Relator. (Habeas Corpus Proceeding). (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
James M. Murphy, Dallas, for appellant.
Bresenhan, Martin & Wingate, Maurice L. Bresenhan, Jr., Houston, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, WARREN and EVANS, JJ.
This is an original habeas corpus proceeding resulting from an order holding relator in contempt for failure to pay child support.
The record reflects that on March 11, 1975, the Court of Domestic Relations of Dallas County, Texas, entered a decree of divorce naming the respondent the managing conservator of the parties' two children and ordering the relator to pay child support in the amount of $200.00 per child each month. On September 30, 1977, relator filed a motion in the 301st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (formerly the Domestic Relations Court of Dallas County) to modify the divorce decree with respect to the child support and access provisions of the decree. On September 1, 1978, pursuant to a motion filed by respondent, and acting under the authority of Section 11.06, Tex.Family Code, the 301st Judicial District Court of Dallas County ordered the proceedings transferred to the District Court of Harris County, Texas.
On December 8, 1978, the respondent filed a motion in the 247th Family District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging that relator was in contempt for failure to abide by the terms of the divorce decree and that for the period from the date of the decree and through November 1978 he was in arrears in child support payments in the total sum of $8,400.00. On January 8, 1979, relator filed a plea to the jurisdiction and in bar of the contempt proceedings, contending that the 301st Judicial District Court of Dallas County had continuing jurisdiction with respect to alleged contempt.
On January 12, 1979, the 247th Family District Court of Harris County adjudged relator to be in contempt of the child support provisions of the Dallas County divorce decree and fixed his confinement in the County Jail of Harris County for a period of 30 days and until he purged himself of such contempt by paying the sum of $6,205.80 to the Harris County Probation Department as child support for his minor children.
The principal question for this court's determination is whether the Harris County court, to which the Dallas County proceedings were transferred, had jurisdiction to consider respondent's motion that relator be held in contempt for acts which allegedly occurred prior to the date of the transfer.
The statutory provision of the Texas Family Code which authorizes the transfer of pending proceedings from one county to another specifies that the court to which the transfer has been made "becomes the court of continuing jurisdiction" and that "all proceedings in the suit are continued as if it were brought there originally." Sec. 11.06(h) Tex.Family Code. It is the respondent's position that the legislature intended by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Barnett
...by the district court of Dallas County. He cites Ex parte Gonzalez, 111 Tex. 399, 238 S.W. 635 (1922) and Ex parte Chandler, 580 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1979) for the proposition that a transferee court has no jurisdiction to punish a party for acts committed prior to th......
-
Ex parte Barnett, 20296
...been transferred to Collin County under section 11.06 of the Code. We recognize that our holding is contrary to the decision in Ex parte Chandler, 580 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1979, no writ). In that case the court of civil appeals felt bound by Gonzales to hold that a co......
-
Chandler v. Mierendorf
...contempt order was attacked by writ of habeas corpus in this court, and appellant was ordered discharged. Ex parte Chandler, 580 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1979). Subsequently the 247th Judicial District Court entered the judgment from which this appeal was Appellant assert......