Ex parte Lindeman, 17426
| Decision Date | 23 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 17426,17426 |
| Parties | Ex parte Benedict R. LINDEMAN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul H. Brunette, Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Guy H. McNeely, Wichita Falls, for appellee.
OPINION ON ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This habeas corpus proceeding was brought by Benedict R. Lindeman after the District Judge held him in contempt, fined him $200.00, and committed him to jail for four days, there to remain until he purged himself of contempt by paying $195.00, which the court found was the amount he was in arrears under a child support order.
The question presented is whether or not the terms of the child support order are definite and certain enough to be enforced by contempt. Our opinion is that the judgment and order of the court is definite and certain.
Elizabeth A. Lindeman was granted a divorce from Benedict R. Lindeman on March 25, 1966. She was awarded the custody of the four (4) minor children and the petitioner herein was ordered to pay child support. The provisions of the judgment concerning child support read as follows:
On July 2, 1972, the petitioner's eldest son, Michael, became eighteen (18) years of age. The petitioner interpreted the child support provision of the above decree to allow him to reduce his child support payments by $32.50 per week each time one of the four children became eighteen years of age. Thereafter on July 2, 1972, when Michael became eighteen years of age the petitioner on his own initiative, without any resort to the trial court, arbitrarily reduced the child support payments he was ordered to pay by the District Court. Ordinarily in cases involving custody and child support cases, the best interest of the child or children is the primary concern.
It must be said that the decree in question was sufficiently certain as long as all four of the children were less than eighteen years of age. When Michael became eighteen years of age this did not mean that each of the children was eighteen....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re V.M.P.
...primarily to the four corners of the underlying order to determine whether the obligor has violated that order. See, e.g., Ex parte Lindeman, 492 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1973, orig. proceeding) (examining original decree to determine if sufficiently specific to support subsequent co......
-
Hopkins v. Hopkins
...Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.Sup., 1967); Garza v. Fleming, 323 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1959, writ ref., n.r.e.); Ex parte Lindeman, 492 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1973, no writ hist.). We find nothing in the Family Code that alters the law or holdings in antecedent ......
-
Ex parte Longoria, 04-84-00133-CV
...relied on the absence of any language making the amount payable dependent on age to distinguish Slavin. 546 S.W.2d at 132. In Ex parte Lindeman, 492 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1973, no writ), a divorce decree which required the payment of a fixed sum per week for the support of th......