Child Support Contempt Notice Requirement
In an supplemental opinion on rehearing, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 19, 2008 that entitlement to notice of intent to revoke suspension of commitment in contempt case is required. In Texas, an obligor can be found in contempt for failure to pay child support. In the Zandi case, the respondent was originally found in contempt but that such order was suspended, then revoked in a compliance hearing without a second notice.
The facts of the case were as follows:
The trial court held relator Reza Zandi in contempt for 23 violations of a child support order, assessed criminal punishment of 175 days per violation to run concurrently, and ordered civil commitment until he paid $90,447.14 arrearage plus interest. But the court suspended the commitment on four conditions: that Zandi (1) pay Kathleen Marie Richardson, the mother of their two children a lump sum of $25,000, (2) make monthly payments of $1,091.29 on the arrearage, (3) continue monthly child support payments of $1,627.00, and (4) appear in court every six months “for review and status hearing.” In the first status hearing, Richardson moved to revoke Zandi’s commitment suspension because he had paid only $700 in current child support for the six months since the contempt order. Zandi objected that Richardson had not filed a written motion to revoke suspension. The court nevertheless revoked suspension. The court of appeals denied Zandi’s petition for habeas corpus. The Texas Supreme Court, ordered Zandi released on a $500 bond.
In its ruling, the Texas Supreme Court reasoned that the purpose of notice is to apprise the respondent of the allegations he faces and provide him time to prepare to respond. In other words, if the respondent appears at the compliance (status) hearing and the movant alleges noncompliance and requests revocation, the trial court must conduct a subsequent or second hearing. The trial court cannot revoke the suspension of commitment or impose sentence without affording the respondent a subsequent hearing, thereby satisfying the due process “hearing” requirement.
The facts of the case were as follows:
The trial court held relator Reza Zandi in contempt for 23 violations of a child support order, assessed criminal punishment of 175 days per violation to run concurrently, and ordered civil commitment until he paid $90,447.14 arrearage plus interest. But the court suspended the commitment on four conditions: that Zandi (1) pay Kathleen Marie Richardson, the mother of their two children a lump sum of $25,000, (2) make monthly payments of $1,091.29 on the arrearage, (3) continue monthly child support payments of $1,627.00, and (4) appear in court every six months “for review and status hearing.” In the first status hearing, Richardson moved to revoke Zandi’s commitment suspension because he had paid only $700 in current child support for the six months since the contempt order. Zandi objected that Richardson had not filed a written motion to revoke suspension. The court nevertheless revoked suspension. The court of appeals denied Zandi’s petition for habeas corpus. The Texas Supreme Court, ordered Zandi released on a $500 bond.
In its ruling, the Texas Supreme Court reasoned that the purpose of notice is to apprise the respondent of the allegations he faces and provide him time to prepare to respond. In other words, if the respondent appears at the compliance (status) hearing and the movant alleges noncompliance and requests revocation, the trial court must conduct a subsequent or second hearing. The trial court cannot revoke the suspension of commitment or impose sentence without affording the respondent a subsequent hearing, thereby satisfying the due process “hearing” requirement.
posted by Elias Lorenzana, Jr., Esq. at
9:39 PM
0 Comments
Links to this post
