Stinson v. Stinson, 04-82-00277-CV
| Decision Date | 14 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-82-00277-CV,04-82-00277-CV |
| Citation | 668 S.W.2d 840 |
| Parties | Werner Felix STINSON, Appellant, v. Shirley Ann STINSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Joseph F. Leonard, Jr., Kathryn Dodd Shane, Leonard & Shane, Kerrville, for appellant.
Thomas Goggan, Austin, Oliver S. Heard, Jr., San Antonio, for appellee.
Before ESQUIVEL, REEVES and TIJERINA, JJ.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit to partition land. On June 2, 1978, the 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas (divorce court), entered a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of Shirley Ann Stinson, the petitioner therein and appellee herein, and Werner Felix Stinson, respondent therein and appellant herein. The decree ordered, inter alia, that appellee was awarded a one-half ( 1/2) interest in a 7,200/10,500ths of 234.8 acres situated in Medina County, Texas. Appellant never appealed the judgment. In 1979, appellee filed the instant suit for partition against appellant, her former husband, in the 38th Judicial District Court of Medina County. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant responded by arguing against appellee's motion, and moving for summary judgment alleging in his motion that the decree of divorce was void. Appellee's motion was granted, appellant's motion was denied, and the trial court ordered the property sold. The court further ordered that the proceeds from the sale be distributed between the parties in accordance with the judgment entered by the divorce court.
Appellant presents us with seven points of error complaining of trial court error in granting the summary judgment in favor of appellee. All seven points in one manner or another assign error on the contention that the judgment of the divorce court awarding appellee a one-half ( 1/2) interest in 7,200/10,500ths of appellant's property is void, and therefore properly the subject of a collateral attack. In support of this contention, appellant argues that the judgment was void because the divorce court had no jurisdiction to render its judgment without the joinder of the life tenant, i.e., his mother; and further, because the gift deed from his mother to him made the remainder his separate property of which the divorce court had no jurisdiction to divest him. We disagree with appellant's contentions and affirm the trial court.
As stated before, appellant never appealed the judgment of divorce granting THE AWARD OF ONE-HALF ( 1/2) INTEREST IN 7,200/10,500THS TO HIS WIFE. he later filed a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Remley v. Kleypas, Civ. A. No. B-84-93-CA.
...259 F.Supp. 9, 11 (N.D.Texas 1966); See also, Ex parte Coffee, 160 Tex. 224, 328 S.W.2d 283 (1959); and Stinson v. Stinson, 668 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Judgments which affirmatively show a jurisdictional defect on the face of the judgment or in the record ......
-
Treadway v. Shanks, 05-98-01228-CV.
...the error was one of substantive law to be remedied by appeal. Lawrence, 911 S.W.2d at 452 n. 1; Stinson v. Stinson, 668 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). There was no appeal of the divorce decree. Consequently, the prior judgment is not subject to collateral a......
-
Goodson v. Castellanos
...1995, writ denied) (judgment based on erroneous holdings of substantive law is not void); Stinson v. Stinson, 668 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (party could not collaterally attack divorce decree even if court erroneously rendered judgment because error of s......
-
Shanks v. Treadway
...the judgment. Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1990); Baxter, 794 S.W.2d at 762; Stinson v. Stinson, 668 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.). The district court was therefore without authority to enter a QDRO altering the terms of the decree by lim......