Ex parte Grothe, 13028
| Decision Date | 02 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 13028,13028 |
| Citation | 581 S.W.2d 296 |
| Parties | Ex parte Carl GROTHE, Relator. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Carol E. Prater, Temple, for appellant.
Charles C. Smith, Jr., Cameron, for appellee.
This is an original habeas corpus proceeding by which relator Carl Grothe seeks discharge from custody of the sheriff of Milam County. Relator was committed to jail by a judgment of contempt entered by the district court of Milam County. Upon presentation of relator's application, this Court directed issuance of the writ and relator's release on bond.
The contempt proceedings arose from a suit for divorce filed in the district court of Milam County by Linda A. Grothe against relator. On November 9, 1976, the district court in a "Temporary Order" ordered relator to pay $500.00 each month as temporary alimony and child support. On August 18, 1978, the district court entered a "Revised Temporary Order" reducing the temporary alimony and child support to $350.00 each month. The district court entered the "Final Judgment" on September 19, 1978. By that judgment the court dissolved the marriage, named managing and possessory conservators, divided the property between the parties, and ordered relator to pay $125.00 each month in support of each of his two children.
The judgment of contempt was signed on March 5, 1979. Relator was adjudged guilty of three contumacious acts: (1) refusal to pay temporary alimony and child support payments for February, 1977; March, 1977; July, 1978; and August, 1978, in violation of the "Temporary Order" signed November 9, 1976; (2) refusal to pay temporary alimony and child support payments for September, 1978, in violation of the "Revised Temporary Order" signed on August 18, 1978; and (3) refusal to pay child support payments for October, 1978, and November, 1978, as ordered by the "Final Judgment" signed on September 19, 1978.
The district court assessed separate punishment for each contumacious act. For each act of contempt the court committed relator to jail for seven days, and for such further time as he failed to comply with the respective order.
On March 5, 1979, the date of the order of contempt, the temporary orders of November 9, 1976, and August 18, 1978, were not valid, subsisting orders. Both temporary orders had been superseded by entry of the divorce decree of September 19, 1978. Ex Parte Deckert, 559 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Civ.App.1977). Those parts of the judgment of contempt based upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rafferty v. Finstad
...superseded the temporary orders. After the decree was entered, the temporary orders ceased to be "valid, subsisting orders." Ex parte Grothe, 581 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1979, orig. proceeding). Therefore, we conclude that Kathleen suffered no harm as a result of the trial cou......
-
In re Office of the Attorney Gen.
...(Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding); In re Miller, 584 S.W.2d 907, 908 (Tex.Civ.App.–Dallas 1979, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Grothe, 581 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1979, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Boyle, 545 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Civ.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, orig. pr......
-
In re B.G.B
...concurrently, one valid adjudication of contempt will sustain the period of confinement imposed for the contempt. Accord , Ex parte Grothe , 581 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979, orig. proceeding). DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS A criminal contempt conviction for violation of a court order ......
-
Ex parte Durham
...sanction order. In support of his argument, Durham cites Schein v. American Restaurant Group, 852 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.1993), and Ex parte Grothe, 581 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1979, orig. proceeding). Both cases are The Schein case involved a sanction barring the introduction of evidence......