McWilliams v. McWilliams, 1280
| Citation | 531 S.W.2d 392 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1280,1280 |
| Parties | Edward C. McWILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Ollie R. McWILLIAMS, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Page 392
v.
Ollie R. McWILLIAMS, Appellee.
Houston (14th Dist.).
Sam Dawkins, Jr., Eastham & Meyer, Houston, for appellant.
Charles H. Waters, Jr., Liddell, Sapp, Zivley & Brown, Houston, for appellee.
TUNKS, Chief Justice.
This appeal arose out of a suit brought by appellant Edward C. McWilliams against his former wife, appellee Ollie R. McWilliams, to recover the amount of payments made by appellant on encumbrances on a farm awarded to appellee in their divorce. The parties were divorced by a decree announced on September 30, 1970 and signed by the trial judge on November 28, 1970. Mr. McWilliams appealed the divorce decree and posted a supersedeas bond. The decree was affirmed by the court of civil appeals, writ of error to the supreme court was denied, and motion for rehearing on the application for the writ of error was denied on September 13, 1971.
As part of the judgment for divorce, Mrs. McWilliams was awarded a farm in Fort Bend County 'subject to all indebtedness and encumbrances against the said property for which the Petitioner (Mrs. McWilliams) shall hold the Respondent harmless for any and all liability and expenses incurred on account of the said indebtedness.' During the pendency of his appeal from the divorce decree, appellant retained possession of the farm and made mortgage payments on November 23, 1970 and June 11, 1971 in amounts totaling $14,941.73. He alleges that during the time he retained possession of the farm, he accounted to appellee for all related income and expenses and derived no benefit from his use or occupancy of the property.
After writ of error was denied by the supreme court, appellant surrendered the farm to appellee and brought this action against her to recover the amount of the mortgage payments he made between the date the divorce decree was announced and the date it became final, in the sense that it was not further appealable, by virtue of denial of writ of error. Appellee did not controvert appellant's assertions that he made the payments, or the amount of the payments, or that he had accounted to appellee for all income from the property. Her answer set out defenses of res judicata, sutatute of limitations, and an allegation that since the divorce judgment had not become final until writ of error was denied, appellant was not entitled to reimbursement for mortgage payments he made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sultan v. Mathew
...power to alter the judgment ends, or when the judgment becomes operative for the purposes of res judicata. Id. (citing McWilliams v. McWilliams, 531 S.W.2d 392, 393-94 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no Interpreting "final" in section 28.053(d) to mean "final for purposes of appeal......
-
In re Simmonds
...when the judgment becomes operative for the purposes of res judicata. Id. (quoting Street, 756 S.W.2d at 301) (quoting McWilliams v. McWilliams, 531 S.W.2d 392, 393-94 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ) (citations Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. v. H & S Supply Co., Inc., 195 S......
-
Oscar Renda Contracting v. H & S Supply
...when the judgment becomes operative for the purposes of res judicata. Id. (quoting Street, 756 S.W.2d at 301) (quoting McWilliams v. McWilliams, 531 S.W.2d 392, 393-94 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ) (citations In Street, the Court established a new rule for determining wh......
-
Williams v. State of Wash.
...all powers originally reserved in its judgment. See Texas Trunk R. R. v. Jackson, 85 Tex. 605, 22 S.W. 1030, 1031 (1898); McWilliams v. McWilliams, 531 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1975, no writ). Thus, affirmance does not preclude the trial court from modifying its ju......