Opinion
No. 05-05-00038-CV
Opinion issued January 9, 2006.
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 86-00332-X.
Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Josephine Murphy filed a Motion for Enforcement of a Child Support Order on March 28, 2003. The Motion requested (1) a judgment of arrearages and (2) that her ex-husband, Randolph Hopkins, be held in contempt for failure to pay his child support obligation for a period of approximately ten years between 1987 and 1997. On June 1, 2004, the court ruled that the Child Support Order was ambiguous and therefore not enforceable by contempt. Murphy appealed. After filing the appeal, Murphy realized that an order refusing to find a party in contempt is not a final, appealable judgment. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1985) (holding that the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction over an order refusing to find an obligor in contempt for child support arrearage). Murphy then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus which was consolidated with the appeal of the contempt order.
The original appeal was captioned as Josephine Murphy v. Randolph Hopkins, Trial Court Cause No. 86-00332-X.
Mandamus relief is available only if a court clearly abused its discretion and no other adequate remedy is available. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000); In re Lewin, 149 S.W.3d 727, 734 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-44 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances. The writ will issue "only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies." Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
In this case, there is an adequate remedy at law. The trial court may still issue a clarifying order and a money judgment for arrearages. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 157.263(a), 157.421(a),(b) (Vernon 2006). The Texas Family Code provides that "[i]f a motion for enforcement of child support requests a money judgment for arrearages, the court shall confirm the amount of the arrearage to a money judgment upon request. In the Interest of Gonzalez, 981 S.W.2d 313, 315 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). Section 157.421 of the family code also provides: (a) A court may clarify an order rendered by the court in a proceeding under this title if the court finds, on the motion of a party or on the court's own motion, that the order is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt; and (b) The court shall clarify the order by rendering an order that is specific enough to be enforced by contempt. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421(a) and (b); see also Gross v. Gross, 808S.W.2d 215, 219 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ); In re Dryden, 52 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no writ). Murphy has an adequate remedy in the trial court. Since the trial court has determined the Order to be ambiguous, it may clarify the Order, confirm the amount of child support arrearage, and render judgment for past due child support. The judgment would then be appealable.
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.