Hamborsky v. Hamborsky
| Decision Date | 03 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 15173,15173 |
| Citation | 497 S.W.2d 405 |
| Parties | Margaret Elizabeth HAMBORSKY, Appellant, v. Rudolph J. HAMBORSKY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Goodstein, Semaan & Bashara, San Antonio, for appellant.
Rudolph J. Hamborsky, pro se.
This is a contempt proceeding in which appellant, Margaret Elizabeth Hamborsky, presents as error the refusal of the trial court to hold her ex-husband, Rudolph J. Hamborsky, appellee, in contempt for his failure to comply with that portion of a previous divorce decree ordering appellee, in settlement of appellant's community interest in appellee's military retirement benefits to pay to appellant the sum of $100 per month not later than five days after receipt by appellee of his military retirement check.
Appellant does not challenge the rule denying appeal from a judgment holding that the respondent in a contempt proceeding is not guilty of the charged contempt. See State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340 (1872). But appellant argues that that rule is not applicable here, since the court's refusal to hold appellee in contempt was based, not on a finding that appellee's conduct was not contumacious in nature, but on the theory that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold appellee in contempt. Appellant's sole point of error is that the trial court erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hold appellee in contempt.
The judgment appealed from recites that the trial court, '. . . Having read the pleadings and heard the evidence and argument of counsel, is of the opinion and finds that the Respondent is not guilty of contempt of court.'
In answer to appellant's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found, as facts, that appellee had received his military retirement checks, but had 'willfully' failed, refused and neglected to pay to appellant the sum of $100 from each of said checks. The final fact finding was to the effect that at the time the decree of divorce was entered, appellee did not have in his possession any monthly checks representing payment of retirement benefits.
The sole conclusion of law recited, 'The Court does not have jurisdiction to hold RUDOLPH J. HAMBORSKY in contempt for failure to make the payments of $100.00 per month in accordance with the divorce decree . . ..'
Appellant's brief is aimed at establishing that imprisonment of appellee for failure to make the periodic payments required by the divorce decree would not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allsup, In Interest of
...denying contempt is not reviewable. Horne v. Harwell, 533 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hamborsky v. Hamborsky, 497 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1973, no writ); Blair v. Blair, 408 S.W.2d 257, 258 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1966, no writ); Gierczic......
-
Rankin v. Bateman
...583 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ), or from an order refusing to hold a party in contempt. Hamborsky v. Hamborsky, 497 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1973, no writ). The trial court cannot grant relief without pleadings to support it, and a judgment......
-
State v. Barraza, 13-87-204-CV
...Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.1985); Anderson v. Anderson, 563 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1978, no writ); Hamborsky v. Hamborsky, 497 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1973, no writ). This is a part of the broader rule holding that no appeal may be had from an adjudication......
-
Horne v. Harwell, 12,378
...child support represented by a money judgment . . .' The order of the district court denying the contempt is not appealable. Hamborsky v. Hamborsky, 497 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973, no writ); Blair v. Blair, 408 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.1966, no writ); Gierczic v. Gierczic, 382 S.W.2d 495 ......