Templet v. Templet, 09

Decision Date12 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 09,09
Citation728 S.W.2d 844
PartiesMargarete Mary TEMPLET, Appellant, v. Harold Paul TEMPLET, Appellee. 86 163 CV.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
OPINION

BURGESS, Justice.

Harold and Margarete Templet were divorced on April 16, 1982. They both approved the divorce decree which provided for conservatorship, support and property division. Some three and one-half years later, Mr. Templet filed a "Motion for Enforcement and Clarification of Prior Order." Mrs. Templet filed a cross-action. The trial court, after a bench trial, entered an order which granted relief to Mr. Templet and denied all relief to Mrs. Templet. Mrs. Templet brings forth the following points of error:

I. The lower court erred in modifying the property division of the original divorce decree because such modification violated sec. 3.71 of the Texas Family Code.

II. The lower court's modification of child support was erroneous as a matter of law because appellee failed to plead or prove the requirements for modification of child support as set out in sec. 14.08 of the Texas Family Code.

III. The lower court erred in modifying child support payments that accrued prior to the filing of the motion for enforcement and clarification of prior order because such modification violated sec. 14.08 of the Texas Family Code.

IV. The trial court erred in dismissing appellant's first amended cross-action because such ruling was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence or was supported by legally insufficient evidence or was supported by no evidence.

The pertinent portion of the divorce decree states:

The Court finds that the parties have entered into an agreement for the division of their estate and same is just and right having due regard for the rights of the parties:

IT IS ORDERED and DECREED that the estate of the parties be divided as follows:

PETITIONER [appellee] is awarded the following as Petitioner's sole and separate property, and Respondent is hereby divested of all right, title and interest in and to such property, to-wit:

1. Any and all house furniture and furnishings in his possession.

2. 1978 Cajun Special 17 1/2' Aluminum Boat/Motor/Trailer.

3. Miscellaneous Power Tolls [sic] and Saws.

4. Stereo.

5. All Office Furniture.

6. All personal effects.

7. Any and all insurance, pensions, retirement benefits, and other benefits arising out of Petitioner's employment.

RESPONDENT [appellant] is awarded the following as Respondent's sole and separate property, and Petitioner is hereby divested of all right, title and interest in and to such property, to-wit:

1. All personal effects.

2. Any and all household furniture and furnishings presently in her possession, SAVE AND EXPECT [sic] the Office Furniture hereinabove awarded to Respondent.

3. 1980 Mazda, Serial # SA22C579371

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the house situated at 12965 Aspen Lane, Beaumont, Jefferson, County, Texas, is hereby awarded to said Respondent for the use and benefit of herself and her children until said children complete four (4) years of college or two (2) years of trade school. It shall be incumbent upon Respondent as occupier of the premises to properly maintain the property, to make all payments upon the note or notes secured by the property, if any, and to pay all taxes upon the property as they accrue. Should the property no longer be used as a home by Respondent and the children, the proceeds from the sale of the property shall be divided equally between the former spouses.

IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Respondent shall remarry, then and in that event, an amount equal to the house payment and utilities shall be deposited by Respondent herein in the children's account for their full use and benefit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that HAROLD PAUL TEMPLET, pay to MARGARETE MARY TEMPLETE, for the support of MICHELLE MARIE TEMPLET and MICHAEL PAUL TEMPLET, child support in the amount of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE and NO/100-($1,125.00)-DOLLARS per month, until the youngest child attains the age of eighteen (18) years and thereafter, by mutual consent of both parties herein, until each child completes four (4) years of college or two (2) years of trade school. The first child support payment being due and payable on the 20th day of May, 1982, and being payable through the Jefferson County Child Support Office and thereafter promptly remitted to the Managing Conservator for the support of said children.

IT IS FURTHER AGREED by and between the parties herein, and it is ORDERED by this Court that said child support payments are to be used to discharge the following monthly indebtednesses, to-wit:

                 $ 775.00  Home Mortgage
                   150.00  Electricity
                    25.00  Telephone
                    25.00  Water
                   150.00  Groceries
                ---------  -------------
                $1,125.00  TOTAL
                

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said Petitioner herein shall be responsible for all educational and clothing expenses incurred by said Petitioner's children during their school years.

IT IS DECREED that Petitioner and Respondent shall execute all instruments necessary to effect this decree and that Petitioner and Respondent have all appropriate and necessary writs, execution, and process, as many and as often as is necessary to accomplish the execution and final disposition of this judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said Petitioner herein shall be responsible for the payment of all automobile insurance coverage on Respondent's vehicle, as long as she has not received a D.W.I. charge against her. Petitioner shall pay said insurance each year until the youngest child completes college or trade school.

The pertinent portion of the order states:

The Court further finds that Movant Harold Paul Templet has complied with said orders and that Respondent Margarete Mary Templet is not entitled to recover judgment or enforcement against Movant by reason of the claims set forth in her First Amended Cross-Action.

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED and DECREED that Respondent Margarete Mary Templet recover NOTHING against Movant Harold Paul Templet, and that all relief requested in Respondent's First Amended Cross-Action be and is hereby DENIED.

The Court finds, and it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED, that Movant Harold Paul Templet is no longer under an obligation to make the payments provided in the orders set out above.

The Court further finds that Movant Harold Paul Templet and Respondent Margarete Mary Templet each own a fifty (50%) percent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Gross v. Gross
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1991
    ...properly refuse to enter judgment on back child support payments because of an ambiguous, indefinite, and uncertain order. Templet v. Templet, 728 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, no The divorce decree was entered on August 30, 1974, after a trial before the court. It did not suppl......
  • Villanueva v. Office of the Atty. Gen.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1996
    ...attempts to establish a defense using Texas law, citing Rovner v. Rovner, 778 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1989, writ denied); Templet v. Templet, 728 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, no writ); and Richey v. Bolerjack, 594 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1980, no writ) for the propositi......
  • Office of the Attorney General v. Buhrle
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 2006
    ...indefinite, and uncertain order, Gross v. Gross, 808 S.W.2d 215, 219 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991); see also Templet v. Templet, 728 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1987, no writ), it stands to reason that a trial court may properly refuse to enter a judgment on a void order. The......
  • Rovner v. Rovner
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1989
    ...for back child support payments. Marichal v. Marichal, 768 S.W.2d 383, 386 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ); Templet v. Templet, 728 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, no writ); Howard v. Texas Dept. of Human Resources, 677 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, no wri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT