Ramirez v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 13 April 2023
• Docket Number: 01-21-00417-CV
• Parties: ERIC JOHN RAMIREZ, Appellant v. JUANITA SANCHEZ, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

ERIC JOHN RAMIREZ, Appellant v. JUANITA SANCHEZ, Appellee

No. 01-21-00417-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

April 13, 2023

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2013-21465

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terry Adams, Chief Justice

This appeal arises from a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. In 2013, the trial court issued an order (the "2013 Order") appointing appellant Eric John Ramirez and appellee Juanita Sanchez as the joint managing conservators of their minor child, A.J.R. The trial court granted Sanchez the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence and ordered Ramirez to pay child support.

In 2019, Ramirez filed the instant suit seeking to modify the 2013 Order. He requested either sole managing conservatorship of A.J.R. or the exclusive right to designate his primary residence, along with child support. Ramirez also filed a motion for enforcement alleging that Sanchez had interfered with his periods of possession and access to the child. The trial court dismissed that motion.

Sanchez moved for a no-evidence summary judgment on Ramirez's claims- which the trial court granted. Sanchez also filed a counterpetition for modification seeking to increase Ramirez's child support. After a bench trial on Sanchez's counterpetition, the trial court increased Ramirez's child support.

Ramirez now appeals. In nine issues, Ramirez contends that the trial court erred in granting a no-evidence summary judgment on his claims, in increasing his child support, in admitting evidence, in granting injunctive relief, awarding attorney's fees, and assessing costs. Ramirez also complains of the trial court's order dismissing his motion for enforcement.

We reverse and remand in part and dismiss in part.

Background

In Ramirez's petition to modify the 2013 Order, he asserted as pertinent here, that the "circumstances of [A.J.R.] a conservator, or other party affected by the order to be modified [had] materially and substantially changed" since the rendition of the 2013 Order. Ramirez sought sole managing conservatorship of A.J.R. or the exclusive right, as a joint managing conservator, to designate A.J.R.'s primary residence. Ramirez also sought child support, an order modifying the terms and conditions of possession, and injunctive relief.

Sanchez likewise asserted in her Second Amended Counterpetition that the "financial circumstances and needs of [A.J.R.] or a person affected by the order [had] materially and substantially changed" since the rendition of the 2013 Order. She asserted that Ramirez's child-support obligation was no longer in compliance with the guidelines in Chapter 154 of the Texas Family Code and sought an increase in Ramirez's child support. Sanchez also sought orders regarding the possession and transfer of A.J.R.'s passport, and injunctive relief.

On April 13, 2021, Sanchez filed a motion for no-evidence summary judgment. She claimed that Ramirez "ha[d] produced no evidence to support his contention that [t]he circumstances of the child, [Ramirez], [Sanchez], or a party affected by the order to be modified [had] materially and substantially changed since the date or rendition of the order to be modified."

Sanchez also claimed there was no evidence that it was in the best interest of the child to modify conservatorship, to order Sanchez to pay child support, or to modify the location of exchanges. Sanchez attached Ramirez's discovery responses as evidence to her no-evidence motion. She also included a notice that the no-evidence motion would be heard by submission on May 4, 2021.

On April 21, 2021, Sanchez filed a Notice of Filing Amended Exhibits to [her] Motion for Summary Judgment stating that Exhibits B and C to her motion were "inadvertently filed with missing pages."

Contemporaneously, Sanchez filed a Notice of Business Records Affidavit, to which she attached the affidavit of Mitch Findley, a customer support manager for the Our Family Wizard website, and 96 pages of messages between Sanchez and Ramirez, along with journal entries by Sanchez.

Sanchez also filed a second Notice of Business Records Affidavit that included the affidavit of Barbara Lynch Schnack, an employee of the Harris County Domestic Relations Office, and a Child Custody Evaluation Report involving A.J.R.

In response to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment, Ramirez filed a document entitled "Child Modification in the Best Interest of [A.J.R.]." In that document, Ramirez presented facts about his relationship with Sanchez and with A.J.R., facts about the current status of their relationships, and the basis for his petition to modify conservatorship or the right to designate the child's primary residence. Ramirez did not attach any evidence.

The trial court granted Sanchez's motion for no-evidence summary judgment. The trial court stated in the summary judgment that it considered "the motion, any response thereto, and . . . any evidence." It also ordered Ramirez to pay Sanchez's attorney's fees of $10,850.00 and costs.

A bench trial was subsequently held on Sanchez's counterpetition to increase Ramirez's child support. Ramirez testified that, at the time of the 2013 Order, he was a student with $1,404.65 in net monthly resources and was ordered to pay $248.00 in monthly child support. Ramirez further testified that, since that time, his financial circumstances had improved. He owned a company from which he received a salary. Ramirez admitted that he transferred funds between his personal and business accounts and that he paid personal expenses from the business account.

The trial court thus ruled that it would consider both the business income and Ramirez's salary in setting his child support payments. Together they totaled $13,229.08 in net monthly resources. The trial court admitted into evidence copies of Ramirez's financial statements.

Sanchez testified that, at the time of the 2013 Order, Ramirez was supporting two children, and A.J.R. was three years old. At the time of the bench trial, Ramirez's income had increased, and his other child was no longer a minor. A.J.R. was then eleven years old and had increased needs and expenses for tutoring and sports.

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court signed a Final Order in Suit to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship ("Final Order") on August 27, 2021. The trial court ruled that "the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or other party affected by the [2013 Order] ha[d] materially and substantially changed" since its rendition and that Ramirez must pay Sanchez monthly child support in the amount of $1,840.00, her attorney's fees of $2,082.50, and costs.

In support of its Final Order, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. They state in pertinent part:

b. The Court finds that the financial circumstances and needs of the child have materially and substantially changed since the date of the order to be modified in that the child is now eight years older. At the time of the first order the child was only three years old. The Court heard testimony about current child related expenses including tutoring extracurricular activities and sports.

c. The Court finds that the financial circumstances and needs of the Respondent have materially and substantially changed since the date of the order to be modified. The Court heard testimony that Respondent was working at the time of the rendition of the order to be modified and that she is now a stay-at-home mother with a second child.

d. The Court finds that the financial circumstances and needs of [Ramirez] have materially and substantially changed since the date of the order to be modified. The Court heard testimony that at the time of the rendition of the order to be modified [Ramirez] worked a part time job making a relatively low income. [Ramirez] testified that he currently owns a business with several employees.

e. The Court finds that support payments previously ordered are not in substantial compliance with the guidelines in chapter 154 of the Texas Family Code, and the requested increase would be in the best interest of the child. [Ramirez] testified that at the time of the rendition of the order to be modified he had another minor child for whom he was paying child support. [Ramirez] testified that he is no longer paying child support for his other child as he is now over the age of eighteen. f. The Court finds [Ramirez's] testimony regarding his net resources was not truthful in several material respects, including monthly deposits into personal checking account, personal and corporate tax returns, and personal expenses paid through business accounts.

g. The Court finds that . . . [Ramirez's] bank statements [indicate] numerous inconsistent direct deposits into . . . personal accounts.

h. The Court finds that . . . [Ramirez's] company's Profit and Loss statement indicates a net corporate income of $773,431.63 for the period beginning on January 1, 2015 through February 12, 2021.

1. The Court finds that [Ramirez] is the sole shareholder of his company, . . . that he has the sole authority to make decisions on employment issues, salaries, benefits, and management . . . .

j. The Court finds that . . . [Ramirez's] business bank statements, indicates numerous personal expenses paid out of the business accounts on a regular basis.

k. The Court finds that the testimony of [Ramirez] suffered from inaccurate and unsupported information. [Ramirez] did not produce in court copies of income tax returns, paycheck stubs, or any other exhibit to accurately identify his net resources.

1. The Court finds the amount

...