Karten v. Snyder, 18305

• Decision Date: 03 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 18305,18305
• Citation: 597 S.W.2d 561
• Parties: James A. KARTEN, Appellant, v. Nancy Y. SNYDER, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 561

597 S.W.2d 561

James A. KARTEN, Appellant, v. Nancy Y. SNYDER, Appellee.

No. 18305.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

April 3, 1980.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1980.

Atkins & McLarty, and Bill Atkins, Arlington, for appellant.

Weldon Parkhill, Grand Prairie, for appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion of Nancy Y. Snyder to dismiss the appeal of James A. Karten, her former husband, for want of jurisdiction.

(Noted is that by reason of our dismissal the occasion for our grant of writ of prohibition in the case of Bill Atkins, et al., vs. Nancy Y. Snyder, et al., subsequent to our acceptance of the appeal in this case is dissolved of its own force, it having been made effective only until disposition of such appeal.)

The appeal admitted was from order of the trial court, denominated "Contempt Order", dated October 9, 1979. Thereby Karten was adjudged in contempt for disobedience of antecedent order of the trial court relative to his return of the minor child of the parties to Mrs. Snyder. However, Karten was not ordered to be jailed. The only punishment assessed, denominated "punishment", was a fine of $500.00. Karten apparently paid this fine. Then deeming himself purged of the contempt decreed by the court, Karten appealed from the award of $750.00 in attorneys fees assessed against him as part of the court's order adjudging him in contempt. The Karten theory was that the provision therefor embodied in the contempt order amounted to a judgment like unto one for debt established on trial from which there might be the ordinary form of appeal to this court; showing, furthermore, that he was denied right to seek relief by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the trial court had not had him put in jail.

The clerk of this court docketed same as an appealed case. This was at our direction. In having so directed the clerk it is now obvious that we erred. Mrs. Snyder moved for dismissal of the Karten appeal on the ground of our want of jurisdiction. By this method we were afforded time to investigate the law applicable to determine whether any appeal might be made under the circumstances described.

In the interim Mrs. Snyder and her attorney (who would have been the person entitled to the $750.00 in attorney's fees) initiated further proceedings in the trial court seeking not only to have Karten (in his absence) adjudged in contempt for not having paid the $750.00 and for having appealed to ...