Dallas Divorce Attorney Prevails On Appeal: No Garnishment for Contractual Alimony
Dallas divorce attorney Michelle May O’Neil and her client prevailed yesterday, February 4, 2010, when the Fifth Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kee v. Kee, Cause No. 05-08-00013-CV. The appeal in Kee arose from an ex-wife’s appeal of the trial court’s refusal to garnish ex-husband’s wages to satisfy his contractual alimony obligation. The trial court in this case rightfully found the garnishment that ex-wife requested would violate ex-husband’s constitutional rights. The Dallas Court of Appeals agreed.
The Court of Appeal’s determination turned on whether the alimony payments wife sought to garnish from husband’s wages were ordered pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, or whether such payments were contractual, as opposed to statutory, alimony. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals closely examined the language of the 2006 divorce decree’s alimony provision. The decree lacked the requisite findings for Chapter 8 maintenance; including a finding that wife was disabled and a stated duration of the maintenance obligation, with the specific language of the alimony provision providing in part:
“The Court finds that under the circumstances presented in this case, [Wife] is eligible for maintenance under the provisions of [the] Texas Family Code and the contractual agreement of the parties; and that this alimony obligation is contractual as well as statutory.”
Because the decree omitted the specific findings required by Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, the Court of Appeals determined that the “statutory” portion of the maintenance obligation could just as easily be Chapter 7 (the code’s provision for informal settlement agreements between parties) as Chapter 8 maintenance. As the alimony ordered by the 2006 decree was contractual rather than statutory under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, the Court of Appeals determined that husband’s wages were not subject to garnishment, and, therefore the trial court ruled correctly.
The opinion in Kee extends the well-established case law prohibiting the enforcement of contractual alimony by contempt, including In re Green and McCollough v. McCollough, to prohibit enforcement of contractual alimony via garnishment of the obligor spouse’s wages absent a specific provision in the decree allowing for such a remedy. The moral of this case, for parties as well as family law attorneys, is be conscious of your drafting – if you intend for a maintenance obligation to be statutory under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, make sure the decree includes the necessary findings. Also, if you intend for contractual alimony to be enforceable via garnishment of the obligor spouse’s wages, this must also be apparent from the terms of the decree.
Congratulations to Michelle May O’Neil on a notable appellate victory for her client.
For more information on alimony in Texas read our prior blog posts:
Alimony in Texas?!? Well, sort of . . .
Alimony in Texas?!? [Part 2 of 2]
To read articles written by Michelle May O'Neil on the topic of alimony/maintenance in Texas:
Comment: Alimony Versus Maintenance
