Knighton v. International Business Machines Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 01-91-01285-CV,01-91-01285-CV
• Citation: Knighton v. International Business Machines Corp., 856 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. App. 1993)
• Parties: Thomas Charles KNIGHTON, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, The IBM Retirement Plan, and Ruth Roskelly, f/k/a Ruth Allison Knighton, Appellees. (1st Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 206

856 S.W.2d 206

Thomas Charles KNIGHTON, Appellant, v.INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, TheIBM Retirement Plan, and Ruth Roskelly, f/k/a Ruth Allison Knighton, Appellees.

No. 01-91-01285-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas Houston (1st Dist.).

April 22, 1993.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1993.

Lester R. Buzbee, III, Buzbee & Associates, P.C., Houston, for appellant.

Bobbie G. Bayless, Bayless & Stokes, Houston, for appelleeRuth Roskelly, f/k/a Ruth Allison Knighton.

Maria Wyckoff Boyce, Marc A. Antonetti, Baker & Botts, L.L.P., Houston, for appelleesInternational Business Machines Corp. and the IBM Retirement Plan.

Before OLIVER-PARROTT, C.J., and O'CONNOR and WILSON, JJ.

OPINION

OLIVER-PARROTT, Chief Justice.

Thomas Charles Knighton(Knighton), appellant, sued his former wife, Ruth Roskelly(Roskelly), International Business Machines Corporation(IBM), and the IBM Retirement Plan (the Plan), appellees, seeking a declaratory judgment to enjoin the enforcement of a Florida court judgment.

The issue is when no action has been requested to enforce the valid judgment of a sister state, should Texas courts interfere with such enforcement because the judgment contains an income deduction order.We conclude Texas courts should not.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of IBM, the Plan, and Roskelly, awarded IBM and the Plan attorney's fees, denied Roskelly's claim for attorney's fees, and denied Knighton's motion for summary judgment.In six points of error, Knighton argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Roskelly and by awarding attorney's fees to IBM and the Plan.In her sole cross point, Roskelly asserts the trial court erred in not granting her request for attorney's fees.We affirm.

Background

On January 13, 1983, the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage of Knighton and Roskelly.Knighton was ordered to pay $175 per week to Roskelly "for permanent alimony."Knighton, who has been employed with IBM for almost 30 years, was transferred by IBM to Texas in 1984 and has remained a resident of Texas since that time.It is undisputed that Knighton did not make the payments as ordered by the Florida court.In November 1990, Roskelly filed a motion for contempt in the Florida court seeking to enforce the judgment.The trial court entered a income deduction order requiring IBM, as Knighton's employer, to deduct "from all monies due and payable to [Knighton] the sum of [$175.00] per week and a like sum every week thereafter, which sum represents [Knighton's] regular support obligation," plus an additional sum of $100.00 per week for payments owed in arrears and a "Supplemental Final Judgment" ordering the implementation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) requiring the Plan to pay Roskelly $813 per month from Knighton's benefits following his retirement.Knighton did not appeal the orders entered by the Florida court.

On January 22, 1991, Knighton filed this lawsuit in Texas against Roskelly and IBM, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Florida orders constituted an illegal garnishment in violation of the laws and the Texas Constitution.Knighton later amended his petition to add the Plan as a defendant.IBM and the Plan responded by filing a general denial and a interpleader action.IBM and the Plan asserted that "rival, adverse, and conflicting claims to Knighton's wages and benefits existed."According to IBM and the Plan, if Knighton prevailed in his suit in Texas, they would be exposed to multiple liability and/or litigation, in light of the Florida court orders.All parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment asserting they were each entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On December 2, 1991, the Texas trial court entered its final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Roskelly, IBM, and the Plan and denying Knighton's motion for summary judgment.The trial court specifically discharged IBM and the Plan from "any and all liability except for payment of any wages and benefits properly due," and awarded attorney's fees to IBM and the Plan to be paid by Knighton, as the losing party.The trial court also denied Roskelly's request for attorney's fees.Knighton now appeals the trial court's judgment.In a single crosspoint, Roskelly challenges the trial court's denial of her claim for attorney's fees.

Standard of review

Summary judgment is proper for a defendant if its summary judgment proof establishes, as a matter of law, that there exists no genuine issue of material fact concerning one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.Gray v. Bertrand, 723 S.W.2d 957, 958(Tex.1987);Goldberg v. United States Shoe Corp., 775 S.W.2d 751, 752(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.]1989, writ denied).

When both parties move for summary judgment, each party must carry its own burden as the movant and, in response to the other party's motion, as the nonmovant.James v. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist., 742 S.W.2d 701, 703(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.]1987, writ denied).When both motions are before the court, the court may consider all the summary judgment evidence in deciding whether to grant either motion.Dallas County Appraisal Dist. v. Institute for Aerobics Research, 766 S.W.2d 318, 319(Tex.App.--Dallas1989, writ denied).The court can rely on one party's evidence to supply missing proof in the other party's motion.DeBord v. Muller446 S.W.2d 299, 301(Tex.1969);Seaman v. Seaman, 686 S.W.2d 206, 210(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.]1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).But the court must indulge all reasonable inferences and resolve all doubts in favor of the losing party.University of Texas v. Big Train Carpet of El Campo, 739 S.W.2d 792, 792(Tex.1987).

In reviewing the granting of a summary judgment, this Court will take all the evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true.MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60(Tex.1986);Goldberg, 775 S.W.2d at 752.When both parties file motions for summary judgment and at least one is granted and the other overruled, we determine on appeal all questions presented, including the propriety of the order overruling the losing party's motion.Jones v. Strauss, 745 S.W.2d 898, 900(Tex.1988);Teledyne Isotopes, Inc. v. Bravenec, 640 S.W.2d 387, 389(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.]1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Full Faith and Credit

In six points of error, Knighton asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Roskelly, IBM, and the Plan, in denying his motion for summary judgment, and in awarding attorney's fees to IBM and the Plan.Knighton does not challenge the validity of the Florida court's judgment awarding $108,995.97 to Roskelly, which represents the arrearages in alimony that he admittedly failed to pay.Knighton further concedes that the Florida court's judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Texas.Knighton, however, asserts the judgment can only be enforced by means of Texas collection procedures.Specifically, Knighton complains of the use of the income deduction order and the QDRO entered by the Florida court to enforce the judgment in Texas.

Attached to Roskelly's motion for summary judgment are certified copies of the Florida court's supplemental final judgment awarding the arrearages to Roskelly, the income deduction order, and the QDRO entered by the Florida court.When a foreign judgment appears to be a valid, final, and subsisting judgment, its introduction makes a prima facie case for the party seeking to enforce it, and the burden is on the party resisting the judgment to establish that it is not final and subsisting.Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364(Tex.1975).Knighton does not dispute the finality of the Florida court's judgment.In fact, Knighton concedes the Florida court's judgment is entitled to full faith and credit.Knighton asserts that the judgment entered by the Florida court cannot be enforced in Texas by the garnishment of wages, which is against the public policy of this State except for the payment of child support.

A state cannot deny full faith and credit to another state's judgment solely on the ground that it offends the public policy of the state where it is sought to be enforced.GNLV Corp. v. Jackson, 736 S.W.2d 893, 894(Tex.App.--Waco1987, writ denied).Moreover, full faith and credit is extended to foreign alimony decrees where, by the laws of the sister state, the arrearages have become vested and absolute.Gard v. Gard, 241 S.W.2d 618, 619-20(Tex.1951);Parker v. Parker, 593 S.W.2d 857, 859(Tex.Civ.App.--Houston[1st Dist.]1980, no writ).

In Texaco, Inc. v. LeFevre, 610 S.W.2d 173, 176(Tex.Civ.App.--Houston[1st Dist.]1980, no writ), this Court held that a Texas resident's wages could be garnished pursuant to a foreign court's order.In LeFevre, Texaco was subject to both a New York court order requiring it to deduct income from the wages of an employee and a Texas court order enjoining such deductions.Id. at 174-75.A federal district court, pursuant to an interpleader action filed by Texaco, upheld the New York order on the basis of full faith and credit and enjoined the Texas court from enforcing its injunction.Id. at 175.We reversed the Texas court's refusal to dissolve its order enjoining Texaco from complying with the New York order, stating: "[o]ur state court was bound to follow the decision of the federal district court even if the effect would be to allow the garnishment of wages, which our state court could not do...."Id. at 176.In the instant case, the Texas courts need do nothing to enforce the valid Florida judgment.Knighton's employer, IBM, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida court and Roskelly's only request is that Texas courts not interfere.This is not a case wherein a party is seeking a Texas court order garnishing wages for the enforcement of a...