Ex Parte McManus
1979 Tex. App. LEXIS 4177, 589 S.W.2d 790 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Attorney's fees awarded in a child support enforcement action are considered part of the fundamental support obligation, not a 'debt,' and their enforcement through contempt proceedings and imprisonment does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.
Facts:
- Jerry Joe McManus and Sharon McManus divorced on August 9, 1977.
- The divorce decree ordered Jerry Joe McManus to pay child support for their two minor children.
- The decree required payments of '$300.00 per month per child,' with the first payment due on August 19, 1977, and 'a like sum each month thereafter.'
- Following the divorce, Jerry Joe McManus made child support payments, but not in the full amount required by the decree.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 18, 1979, a show-cause order was issued, ordering Jerry Joe McManus to appear in district court to show why he should not be held in contempt for violating the child support provisions of the divorce decree.
- Respondent Sharon McManus's motion for contempt included a prayer for reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
- A contempt hearing was held in the district court, at which McManus was represented by counsel but did not testify.
- The district court found McManus in contempt and entered a contempt order, which included an award of attorney's fees.
- After being taken into custody by the sheriff, Jerry Joe McManus (Relator) filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus in the reviewing court, collaterally attacking the validity of the contempt order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contempt order that includes imprisonment for failure to pay attorney's fees awarded in a child support enforcement action violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Justice.
No, a contempt order enforcing a child support judgment that includes an award of attorney's fees does not violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Public policy imposes a legal duty upon parents to support their children, which is distinct from a mere debt. Because attorney's fees are a necessary means of enforcing this duty, they are of the same nature as the support obligation itself and may be enforced through contempt proceedings. The court also held that due process was satisfied because the relator had notice that fees were being sought and an opportunity to be heard. Finally, the court rejected the arguments that the relator had to be identified in open court and that the underlying support decree was ambiguous, finding the decree's terms to be clear and specific.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the special status of child support as a legal duty rather than a civil debt, carving out a significant exception to the constitutional ban on imprisonment for debt. It strengthens the enforcement mechanisms available to custodial parents by allowing the recovery of attorney's fees through the potent tool of contempt, ensuring that the financial burden of enforcement does not fall on the parent seeking support for their children. The ruling also clarifies that procedural due process in contempt hearings focuses on notice and the opportunity to be heard, rather than rigid formalities like in-court identification, thereby streamlining enforcement actions.
