Corey L. Roberts v. Celia Clanton Roberts ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                        ACCEPTED
    01-15-00024-CV
    FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    2/23/2015 8:34:24 PM
    CHRISTOPHER PRINE
    CLERK
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    FILED IN
    1st COURT OF APPEALS
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    2/23/2015 8:34:24 PM
    NO. 01—15—00024-CV
    CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
    Clerk
    COREY L. ROBERTS,
    Appellant,
    V.
    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,
    Appellee.
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Orange County, Texas
    Trial Court   Cause No. C—l40,473-D
    APPELLANT’S BRIEF
    CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C.
    1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800
    Houston, Texas 77056
    ~
    Tel: (832) 730-2987, Fax: (832) 730-2966
    By
    ionBar No. 24013329
    ‘
    I
    “
    Picker
    ,
    B.
    State
    E-mail: apickelner@cordelllaw.corn
    Lauren E. Melhart
    State Bar No. 24060275
    E-mail: 1melhart@cordelllaw;corn
    Attorneys for Appellant
    ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
    I])ENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
    Pursuant to the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.l(a), Appellant, Corey
    L. Roberts, provides the following complete     list   of   all parties   and counsel   to the
    trial   court’s judgment being appealed:
    Appellant:
    Corey L. Roberts
    7705 Barton Rd.
    Adrian, Michigan 49221
    Trial/Appellate Counsel for Corey L. Roberts
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    CORDELL &      CORDELL, P.C.
    1300 Post Oak BlVd., Suite 1800
    Houston, Texas 77056
    State Bar No. 24013329
    apickelner@cordel1law.com
    Appellee:
    Celia Clanton Roberts
    7126 W. Windy Lane
    Orange, Texas 77630
    Trial/Appellate Counsel for Celia Clanton Roberts
    Joe D. Alford, Attorney at Law
    105 S. Market Street
    Orange, Texas 77630
    State Bar No. 01012500
    jd.alford@hotmail.com
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Identity   of Parties and Counsel ...............................................          ..1
    II.         Table of Contents .......... .L .........................         ........................ ..2
    III.        Index of Authorities ............................................................. ..4
    Statement of the Case .......................................................... ..6
    Issues Presented ................................................................. ..7
    VI.         Statement of Facts     .............................................................. ..8
    VII.        Summary of Argument ......................................................... ..9
    VIII.       Argument     ........................................................................ ..9
    .   Issue Number One — Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, does a
    trial court commit reversible error by granting a default judgment when
    the record clearly shows failure to strictly comply with the rules
    regarding service?
    1.     Standard of Review ........     . ._   ........................................... ..9
    2.     The   return of service   was not on file   for ten days as required under
    Rule l07(h) of the Texas        Rules of Civil Procedure ................ ..l1
    3.     The   return of service contained defects which prevent a finding of
    strict compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ........ ..11
    .   Issue Number Two — Under Texas law, does a trial court abuse its
    discretion by finding and ruling that one party shall be sole managing
    conservator when no pleadings included such a request, and the other
    party never received notice that sole           conservatorship   was
    al6issue? ........................................................................ ..13
    IX.         Prayer ............................................................................ ..l4
    Verification .....................................................................         ..   16
    XI.     Certificate of Service ..................     .....................................   ..   17
    XII.    Certificate of Compliance .................................................... ..17
    XIII.   Appendix .................................................................   .   .... ..A-1
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases                                                                                              Page
    Barker CATV Constr., Inc. v. Ampro, Inc.,
    
    989 S.W.2d 789
    (Tex. App.—-Houston [1stDist.] 1999, no pet.) ....... ..10
    Cain    v.    Cain,
    No. 14-07-00114-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9276,
    
    2007 WL 4200638
    at *4 (Tex.App.—Houston 14th, 2007, no pet.)                       ...... ..13
    Capitol Brick, Inc.   Fleming Mfg. Co.,
    v.
    
    722 S.W.2d 399
    (Tex. 1986) .................................................... ..13
    Halla    V.   Halla,
    No. 14-06-01126-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6656,
    
    2007 WL 2367600
    at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston 14*, 2007, no pet.)                        ...... ..13
    Ilzflv.   11299:
    
    339 S.W.3d 74
    , 82 (Tex. 2011) .................................................. ..14
    I
    Ins.   Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune,
    
    297 S.W.3d 254
    , 256 (Tex.2009).             ............................................ ..11
    Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc. v. Wallace,
    
    944 S.W.2d 72
    (Tex.App.—Waco 1997, writ denied) ..................... ..10
    Marrot Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town & Country P'ship,
    
    227 S.W.3d 372
    (Tex.App.——Houston [1st Dist.] 2007,                      pet. denied) .... ..9
    Illidstate Envtl. Servs.,          LP v. Peterson,
    
    435 S.W.3d 287
    (Tex. App.—Waco, 2014) ....... ... ......................                ..11
    Nueces County Housing Assistance, Inc. v.              M M
    & Resources Corp.,
    
    806 S.W.2d 948
    (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) .......... ..9
    Patterson       v.   Brist,
    
    236 S.W.3d 238
    , 240 (Tex. App., 2006)              ..................................... ..14
    Peck v. Peck,
    
    172 S.W.3d 26
    , 25 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2005, pet. denied) ................ ..13
    Primate Corzstr., Inc. v. Silver,
    
    884 S.W.2d 151
    (Tex. 1994)(per curiam) ................................... ..10
    Turner   v.   Turner,
    
    47 S.W.3d 761
    , 763 (Tex.App.—Houst0n                [1st Dist.]   2001, no pet.)     .....   ..14
    Worford v. Stamper,
    
    801 S.W.2d 108
    (Tex. 1990) ..................................................... ..14
    Statutes      and Rules
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 107 .................................................................     ..11,     A-28
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 239 .................................................     ................ ..13,    A-30
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 301 ...................................................................   ..13,    A-31
    Statement of the Case
    This appeal arises       fiom divorce litigation initiated by Celia Clanton Roberts
    (“Appellee”) on       May      16, 2014.   (Record   at 5.)   Appellant, Corey L. Roberts,
    (“Appellant”)       was Respondent below.     (R. at 5.)
    On July 22, 2014, Appellee filed a Motion for Alternative Service which was
    granted on that same date (R. at 10, 14.)       The return of service,    filed   on August    19,
    2014, states that Linda Roberts was served on July 31, 2014. (R. at 15.)
    On August         26,    2014, Appellee obtained a default judgment against
    Appellant. (R. at      17.).
    On September 24, 2014, a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Motion
    for   New   Trial   was timely filed by Appellant.          (R. at 44.)   The   trial   court heard
    Appellant’s requests on October 29, 2014, and thereafter denied the relief
    requested. (R. at 53.)
    On November         21, 2014, Appellant filed notice of this appeal pursuant to
    Section 25.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. (R. at 56.)
    Issues Presented
    Under   the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, does a trial court commit
    reversible error by granting a default judgment when the record clearly
    shows failure to strictly comply with the rules regarding service?
    Under Texas law, does a trial court abuse its discretion by finding and ruling
    that one party shall be sole managing conservator when no pleadings
    included such a request, and the other party never received notice that sole
    conservatorship was at issue?
    Statement of Facts
    This appeal arises from divorce litigation initiated by Celia Clanton Roberts
    (“Appellee”) on      May   16, 2014.    (R. at 5)   Among   other things, in her petition,
    Appellee pled for the parties to be     named joint managing      conservators of their two
    children.    (R. at 6.) Appellant,     Corey L. Roberts, (“Appellant”) was Respondent
    below and was a resident of Michigan at all relevant times. R.            at 5.)
    On July 22, 2014, Appellee filed a Motion for Alternative Service.                (R. at 10)
    Her motion was granted on that same date and permission was given                  for Appellant
    to be served   by leaving a copy of the    citation, pleadings,   and orders with a person
    over the age of 16 at his residence or by attaching the documents to the main entry
    door of his residence.      (R. at 14)    According   to the return       of service,    filed   on
    August   19, 2014,    Linda Roberts was served on July 31, 2014. (R.          at 15.)
    On    August 26, 2014, approximately one week         after the      proof service was
    filed, Appellee obtained a default        judgment against Appellant.           (R. at 17.)       In
    addition to granting the divorce, the court’s ruling included orders                         naming
    Appellee sole managing conservator of the parties’ two children. (R.               at 19.)
    On September 24, 2014, a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Motion
    for   New   Trial   was timely filed by Appellant.     (R. at 44.)     The     trial   court heard
    Appel1ant’s requests on October 29, 2014. OK. at 53.) At this hearing, Appellant
    testified that he never received actual notice of the              suit.     No     contradicting
    testimony was offered by Appellee O{eporter’s Record, vol.                        3, p. 7:8-15, 8:4-8).
    The court denied Appellant’s          relief requested      on the same    date. (R. at 53.)
    On November 21, 2014, Appellant filed notice of this appeal.                       (R. at 56.)
    Summary of the Argument
    The   trial   court abused   its   discretion    by granting a    default   judgment against
    Appellant      when     the return of service had not been           on   file   the requisite ten       day
    period.
    The   trial   court abused   its    discretion   by denying Appellant’s request               to set
    aside the default       judgment when the return of service               is   defective    and does not
    A
    show strict compliance with the             law.
    The   trial   court abused   is    discretion   by naming Appellee        the sole    managing
    conservator of the parties’ children               when     the pleadings did not request sole
    managing conservatorship and thus the issue was not before the court.
    Argument
    A.       Issue   Number One.
    Under the Texas Rules of                    Civil Procedure, does a trial court                  commit
    reversible error by granting a default judgment when the record clearly
    shows failure to strictly comply with the rules regarding service?
    1.      Standard of Review
    When     a no-answer default judgment             is   challenged, the record        must show
    strict   compliance with the manner and             mode of service;       otherwise, the service is
    -9--
    invalid and the default       judgment    is   void.     Primate Constr.,                Inc.    v.   Silver,   
    884 S.W.2d 151
    , 152 (Tex. l994)(per curiam).                     It is   the responsibility of the one
    requesting service to see that service          is   properly accomplished. Laidlaw Waste
    Sys., Inc. v.    Wallace, 
    944 S.W.2d 72
    , 75            (Tex.App.—Waco                    1997, writ denied).
    This responsibility extends to assuring that service                   is    properly reflected in the
    record. 
    Id. “In contrast
    to thelusual rule that               all    presumptions will be made in
    support of a judgment, there are no presumptions of Valid issuance, service, and
    return of citation    when examining     a default judgment.” Barker                     CATV Constr.,          Inc.
    v.   Ampro,   Inc.,   
    989 S.W.2d 789
    , 792 (Tex. App.--Houston                           [lst Dist.] 1999,        no
    pet.); see also    Primate Constr.,    
    Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152
    . If the        record before the
    trial   court does not affirmatively show, at the time that default                               judgment        is
    rendered, that the defendant has appeared,             was properly          served, or         waived service
    in writing, the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.                               Marrot
    C0mmc’ns,       Inc. V.   Town   &   Country P’ship, 
    227 S.W.3d 372
    , 376 (Tex.App.—
    Houston    [lst Dist.]    2007, pet. denied). Virtually any deviation from the requisites
    of statutes and Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process will destroy a
    default judgment. Nueces         County Housing Assistance,                 Inc.   V.
    ‘M
    &    M Resources
    Corp., 
    806 S.W.2d 948
    , 949 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied).
    Rendition of a default judgment        when there       is   a failure to strictly comply with the
    procedural rules regarding service constitutes reversible error and the judgment
    -10-
    must be overturned. See     Ins.   Co. of State of Pa.      v.   Lejeune, 
    297 S.W.3d 254
    , 256
    (Tex.2009).
    2.   The return of service was not on file                 for ten days as required        under
    Rule l07(h) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    A default judgment may only be obtained if the return of service has been on
    file with the court’s clerk for ten days. TEX. R. CIV. P. 107. Rule l07(h) of the
    Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically             states    “no default judgment         shall   be
    granted in any cause until proof of service...sha1l have been on file with the clerk
    of the court ten days.”   Any default judgment granted when the return has not been
    on file for the required amount of time          is   void. See Azfidstate Envtl. Servs.,          LP v.
    Peterson, 
    435 S.W.3d 287
    , 291 (Tex.          App.—Waco,           2014).
    In the case at bar, Appellee obtained a default judgment on August 26,
    2014. (R. at 17.) The return of service        upon which she            relied to   show compliance
    with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure         was only filed 6 days            prior,   on August    19,
    2014. (R. at 15.) Accordingly,       it is   clear   from the record        that Appellant failed to
    strictly   comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the lower court committed
    reversible error   by granting the   default judgment.           The lower       court never obtained
    personal jurisdiction over Appellant and thus the order             is   void.
    3.    The return of service contained defects which prevent a finding of
    strict compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure                    dictates the requirements
    -11-
    that    must be complied with          in order to properly effectuate      and document service on
    a respondent. This rule specifically lays out the contents of the return of service
    (i.e.   the person served, a description of what            was   served), the information that       must
    be provided by a process server             (i.e.   his address), and imposes the procedure to          be
    followed whether serving by personal service or an alternative method.                       
    Id. In this
    case, there are several defects in the return and associated affidavit
    which prevent a finding of               strict   compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
    First,   the documents contain conflicting statements as to                 who was       served. (R. 15-
    16.)     The    first page of the return of service that the individual served                was “Linda
    Roberts” and the respondent was not served. (R. 15.) The second page, containing
    the process server’s affidavit, then goes              on to   state that the   respondent was served.
    (R. 16.)       The affidavit provides a           line for disclosure   of the name of any person on
    whom the documents were served as a permitted proxy of the respondent.                             (R. 16.)
    This line      is   completely blank. (R. 16.)
    Second, the documents never state what precisely was served on the
    respondent.           The    return states that the citation         and   petition      were served by
    “delivering”         them   to   Linda Roberts without stating that she was a person over the
    age of 16       at the respondent’s resident or         by attaching them       to the   main entry door
    of his    home       (the only    two permitted methods         for substitute service in this case).
    (R.     15.)        The   affidavit   merely     states that the process server left copies              of
    -12-
    undescribed documents at the dwelling with someone over the age of 60. (R. 16.)
    Finally,      no where     in the return or related affidavit is the address for the
    process server provided. (R. 15-16.)
    It   was Appellee’s        responsibility   and burden          to supply the court with        proof
    that service   was properly accomplished. There                  are multiple deviations         from the
    requisites of the procedural rules for service            of process contained in her proof and
    thus the default judgment cannot stand.
    B.    Issue    Number Two.
    Under Texas      law, does a trial court abuse            its  by finding and ruling
    discretion
    that one party shall be sole         managing conservator when no pleadings included
    such a request, and the other party                        never received notice that sole
    conservatorship was at issue?
    A trial court may only render a default judgment on the pleadings against a
    respondent that has neither appeared nor answered. TEX. R. CIV. P. 239.                      A default
    judgment, though, must be based on the pleadings of the non-defaulting party.
    TEX. R. CIV. P. 301; see also Capitol Brick, Inc.               v.   Fleming Mfg. Co., 
    722 S.W.2d 399
    , 401 (Tex. 1986). While technical pleading rules are of reduced significance
    where the best      interests   of the child are the paramount concern,           e. g.   Cain   v.   Cain,
    No. 14-07-00114-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9276, 
    2007 WL 4200638
             at   *4
    (Tex.App.—Houston          14”‘,   2007, no   pet.),     Halla   v.   Halla, No. 14-06-01126-CV,
    2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6656, 
    2007 WL 2367600
    at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston                        14”‘,
    2007, no   pet.),   Peck   v.   Peck, 
    172 S.W.3d 26
    , 25 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2005, pet.
    -13-
    denied), the pleadings            still   must place the other side on notice of                 the claim
    involved. Halla, at *2.
    A trial   court’s rulings           on conservatorship and possession             are reviewed for
    abuse of discretion.        Turner        v.   Turner, 
    47 S.W.3d 761
    , 763 (Tex.App.—Houston
    [1stDist.] 2001,      no   pet.).    A court abuses its discretion if         it fails   to follow the law.
    See Worford      v.   Stamper, 
    801 S.W.2d 108
    , 109 (Tex. 1990); see also Ilzflv.                       Ilzfif
    
    339 S.W.3d 74
    , 82 (Tex. 2011). Only                 if it is   determined from reviewing the record
    as a whole, that the trial court abused             its   discretion will the lower court’s ruling      be
    reversed. Patterson        v.   Brist,    
    236 S.W.3d 238
    , 240 (Tex. App.,          2006)..
    In her original petition for divorce, Appellee requested that the parties be
    named joint managing            conservators of the parties’ two children. (R. 6.) There                 is
    nothing in her petition requesting sole managing conservatorship of the children or
    that could serve as notice to Appellant that                   such a claim was    at issue. (R. at 5-8.)
    The   default   judgment rendered by the lower                  court, though,    named Appellee      sole
    managing conservator.               (R. at 19.)      This appointment did not conform to the
    pleadings of Appellee and cannot stand.
    Prayer
    Appellant respectfully requests, based on the argument and authorities
    contained herein, that the Court reverse the applicable rulings of the Orange
    County, Texas County Court at Law and hold as follows                     -
    -14-
    0   The default judgment               is    invalid and thus the      trial   court abused     its
    discretion     by denying Appellant’s request to               set aside the order;   and
    0   The    trial    court   abused           its    discretion   by naming Appellee sole
    7
    managing conservator.
    Appellant further requests that the Court remand this case to the lower court for a
    properly noticed   trial   on the merits.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C.
    1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800
    Houston, Texas 77056
    Tel: (832) 730-2987, Fax: (832) 730-2966
    By:    /s/ Aaron B. Pickelner
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    State Bar No. 24013329                  p
    E-mail: apicke1ner@cordelllaw.com
    Lauren E. Melhart
    State Bar No.,24060275
    E-mail: l.tnelhart@cordelllaw.com
    Attorneys for Appellant
    STATE OF TEXAS                                   §
    COUNTY OF HARRIS                                 §
    Before me, the undersigned authority appeared, Aaron B. Pickelner, known
    to       me     to be the person           whose name   is   subscribed below,      who   stated,   under      oath,
    that           he    is    above the age of twenty-one years, he        is   the attorney for Appellant,
    Corey L. Roberts, in his capacity as such, has personally reviewed                                  ‘all.   exhibits
    contained in the appendix to this Appellant’s Briefl he has personal knowledge that
    all       such exhibits are true, correct and complete as contained in the files of Orange
    County                  District        Clerk or LexisNexis, as applicable, except as redacted                       in
    compliance with the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    /
    Aaron B. Pickeiner
    SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME                                                this   Q 3rd)‘                 day of
    kzmfl             [1                 ,20l5.
    Km-nzvN MARTI 1? on
    ,                            .
    “N...     N14,,’
    ~~~~~ -""5:      .
    My Cum;-nlss 020”
    *4
    ~1   .
    "'Iu:9ni\
    .-
    $5‘
    June 18.
    Certificate of Service
    I certify   that a true   copy of the foregoing with attached appendix was served
    in accordance with       Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on each
    party or that party's lead counsel Via e-service on February 23, 2015:
    Counsel for Appellee:
    Mr. Joe D. Alford
    105 S. Market Street
    Orange, Texas 77630
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    /s/
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    Lauren E. Melhart
    Attorneys for Appellant
    Certificate of Compliance
    Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3),       I certify   that this   document contains
    1,791 words and    is   thus within the limits imposed by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B).
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    /s/
    Aaron B. Pickelner
    Lauren E. Melhart
    Attorneys for Appellant
    -17-
    APPENDEX
    Final Decree of Divorce.
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107.
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 301.
    08/28/14 10:03:36 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT
    CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA
    NO. C-l4l_),473-D
    IN THE MATTER or                                                  IN THE        COUNTY CQURT AT gxw
    THE MARRIAGE OF
    §
    §                               gm     \              A         5
    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS
    §
    §                               3,;    Q
    2
    m           3
    g
    .~..
    AND                                                        §                              §; st,                         g        asiiiw
    COREY L. ROBERTS,                                                                         j; m§Q\
    A13
    I;
    §                              :5‘                          ,2
    AND rN THE INTEREST or                                     §
    *7
    gs;       <
    COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS AND                                §      ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS
    LILY MARIE ROBERTS, CHILDREN                               §
    FIZNAL DECREE or          DIVORCE
    On August 26, 2014 the Court heard this case.
    Appearances
    Petitioner,    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,                 appeared   in   person and through attomey of
    record,   JOE D. ALFORD,          and announced ready lbr trial.
    Respondent,      COREY     L.   ROBERTS,      although duly and properly       cited, did not       appear
    and wholly     made default.
    Record
    The record of testimony was duly reported by the            court reporter for the County Court at
    Law.
    Jurisdiction       and Domicile
    The Court finds       that the pleadings     of Petitioner are    in   due form and     contain     all     the
    allegations, information,      and prerequisites required by law, The Court,         after receiving evidence,
    finds   that   it   has jurisdiction of this case and of all the parties and that at least sixty days have
    elapsed since the date the suit      was filed.
    Page   1   of 27
    .p,.'\
    08/28/14 10:03:38 Orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    The Court fimher finds              that, at the     time this   suit   was filed,   Petitioner had   been a
    domiciliary      of Texas   for the preceding six—month period and a resident of the county in             which
    this suit   was filed      for the preceding ninety-day period.           All persons entitled to citation   were
    properly cited.
    Jury
    A jury was waived, and questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court.
    \
    Divorce
    IT IS     ORDERED AND DECREED that CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS,                               Petitioner,   and
    COREY       L.   ROBERTS,       Respondent, are divorced and             that the   marriage between them         is
    dissolved   on the ground of insupportability.
    Children ofthe Marriage
    The Court finds that Petitioner and Respondent are the parents of the following                children:
    Name:   COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS
    Sex:       Male
    Birth date:         June 24, 2005
    Home state:         Texas
    Social Security number:                    ‘"9’-5012
    Name: LILY        MARIE ROBERTS
    Sex:       Female
    Birth date:         March   3,   201   1
    Home state:         Texas
    Social Security number:                    ***-*’-4949
    The Court finds no other children of the marriage are expected.
    Page 2 of27
    A/7,
    08/28/14 10:03:39 Otcange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Parenting Plan
    The Court finds     that the provisions in this decree relating to the rights      and duties of the
    parties   with relation to the children, possession of and access to the children, child support, and
    optimizing the development of a close and continuing relationship between each party and the
    children constitute the parenting plan established         by the Court.
    Conservatorsltip
    The Court, having considered        the circumstances     of the parents and of the   children, ‘finds
    that the following orders are in the best interest       of the children.
    IT IS    ORDERED      that    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                 is   appointed Sole   Managing
    Conservator and         COREY          L.   ROBERTS      is   appointed Possessory Conservator of the
    following children:      COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS and LILY MARJJE ROBERTS
    IT 15    ORDERED     that, at all times,   CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,                 as a parent sole
    managing conservator,       shall   have the following   rights:
    1.     the tight to receive information from any other conservator of the children
    V
    concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children;
    D
    2.   the right to confer with the/other parent to the extent possible before making a
    decision concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children;
    3.       the right of access to medical, dental, psychological, and educational records of
    the children;                                                   ,
    4.       the right to consult with a physician, dentist, or psychologist of the children;
    5.      the right to consult with school officials concerning the children's welfare and
    educational status, including school activities;
    6.       the right to attend school amivities;
    7.     the right to be designated        on the   children's records as a person to be notified in
    case of an emergency;
    Page 3 of27
    Pié
    08/28/14 10:03:40 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    8.     the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment during an
    .
    emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the children; and
    9.   the tight to manage the estates
    r
    of the children to the extent the estates have been
    created by the parent or the parent's family.
    lT IS        ORDERED         that, at all   times,   COREY     L.   ROBERTS,       as a parent possessory
    conservator, shall have the following rights:
    I.     the right to receive infonnation from any other conservator of the children
    concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children;
    2.     the right to confer with the other parent to the extent possible before                        making a
    decision oonceming the health, education, and welfare of the children;
    3,           the right of access to medical, dental, psychological, and educational records               of
    the children;
    4.           the right to consult with a physician, dentist, or psychologist         of the children;
    5.      the right to consult with school officials concerning the children's welfare and
    educational status, including school activities;
    6,           the light to attend school activities;
    7.     the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment during an
    emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the children; and
    8.     the right to manage the estates               of the children   to the extent the estates   have been
    created   by the parent or the parent's family.
    IT IS        ORDERED that,        at all   times;   CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,                as a parent sole
    managing conservator           shall   have the following duties:
    1,      the duty to inform the other conservator of the children in a timely manner of
    significant information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children; and
    2.      the duty to inform the other conservator of the children if the conservator resides
    with for at least thirty days, marries, or intends to marry a person who the conservator knows is
    registered as a sex offender under chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is currently
    charged with an ofiense for which on conviction the person would be required to register under
    that chapter. IT IS          ORDEREDthat this information shall be tendered in the form of a notice
    made as soon as practicable, but not later than the fortieth day afier the date the conservator of
    the children begins to reside with the person or on the tenth day after the date the marriage
    Page 4 of 27
    M
    08/28/14 10:03:42 orange County District clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    occurs, as appropriate. ['1' ISORDERED     that the notice must include a description of the offense
    that is the basis of the person's requirement to register as a sex offender or of the offense with
    which the person is charged. WARNING:                A CONSERVATOR COMMITS AN            OFFENSE
    PUNISHABLE AS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR                        IF THE CONSERVATOR FAILS TO
    PROVIDE THIS NOTICE.                                   '
    IT IS   ORDERED      that, at all   times,   COREY   L.   ROBERTS,       as a parent possessory
    conservator, shall have the following duties:
    1.     the duty to inform the other conservator of the children in a timely manner of
    significant information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children; and
    2.     the duty to inform the other conservator of the children if the conservator resides
    with for at least thirty days, marries, or intends to marry a person who the conservator knows is
    registered as a sex offender under chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is currently
    charged with an offense for which on conviction the person would be required to register under
    that chapter. IT IS ORDERED that this infomtation shall be tendered in the fonn of a notice
    made as soon as practicable, but not later than the fortieth day after the date the conservator of
    the children begins to reside with the person or on the tenth day afier the date the marriage
    occurs, as appropriate. IT IS ORDERED that the notice must include a description of the ofi“ense
    that is the basis of the person's requirement to register as a sex offender or of the offense with
    which the person is charged. WARNING: A CONSERVATOR COMMITS AN OFFENSE
    PUNISHABLE AS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR II THE CONSERVATOR FAILS TO
    PROVIDE THIS NOTICE.
    IT IS     ORDERED       that,   during her periods of possession,          CELIA CLANTON
    ROBERTS, as a parent sole managing conservator, shall        have the following rights and   duties:
    1.       the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the children;
    '7
    the duty to support the children, including providing the children with clothing,
    food, shelter, and medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure;
    3,      the right to consent for the children to medical and dental care not involving an
    invasive procedure; and
    4.       the right to direct the moral and religious training   of the children.
    Page 5 of 27
    A-5
    08/28/14 10:03:43 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    IT IS    ORDERED        that,   during his periods of possession,    COREY       L.     ROBERTS,         as a
    parent possessory conservator, shall have the following rights and duties:
    1.       theiduty of care, control, protection,    and reasonable    discipline of the children;
    2.      the duty to support the children, including providing the children with clothing,
    food, shelter, and medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure;                 '
    3.      the right to consent for the children to medical and dental care not involving an
    invasive procedure; and
    4.        the right to direct the moral and religious training      of the   children.
    IT IS    ORDERED         that    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,                     as parent sole       managing
    conservator, shall have the following exclusive rights       and   duty:
    1.       the right to designate the primary residence of the children;
    2.        the right to consent to medical, dental,     and   surgical treatment involving invasive
    procedures;
    3.        the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment          of the     children;
    4.      the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the
    children and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the children;
    5.        the right to represent the children in legal action and to          make   other decisions of
    substantial legal significance   conceming the children;
    6.        the right to consent to marriage       and to enlistment      in the   armed forces of the
    United States;
    7,        the right to   make decisions concerning the children's     education;
    8.        except as provided by section 264.011]       of the Texas Family Code,             the right-to the
    services and earnings of the children;
    9,      except when a guardian of the children's estates or a guardian or attorney ad [item
    has been appointed for the children, the right to am as an agent of the children in relation to the
    children's estates if the children's action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign
    government; and
    lo.      the duty to manage the estatm of the children to the extent the               estates   have been
    created by   community property or the joint property of the parents.
    Page 6 of 27
    H4!
    08/28/14 10:03:44 orange county District clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Passport Provisions
    IT IS   ORDERED that CE-LIA CLANTON ROBERTS has the sole and exclusive                      right
    to apply for a passport for the children,      COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS              and LILY     MARIE
    ROBERTS.
    IT IS   FURTHER ORDERED that COREY L. ROBERTS                   is   prohibited fi'om applying
    for a passport for the children,       COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS and LILY MARIE ROBERTS.
    IT IS    ORDERED that CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                  shall    have the   right to maintain
    possession of any passports of the children,        COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS                   and   LILY
    MARIE ROBERTS.
    Possession   and Access
    1.      Possession Order
    IT IS    ORDERED      that each conservator shall comply with all terms and
    conditions of this Possession Order. IT IS        ORDERED that this Possession Order is
    effective immediately and applia to all periods of possession occuning on and after the
    date the Court signs this Possession Order. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
    (a)     Definitions
    I.    In this Possession Order "school" means the primary or secondary
    school in which the child is enrolled or, if the child is not enrolled in a primary or
    secondary school, the public school district in which the child primarily resides.
    2.              Possession Order "child" includes each child, whether one
    In this
    or more,    who  a subject of this suit while that child is under the age of eighteen
    is
    years and not otherwise emancipated,
    (b)    Mutual Agreement or Specified Terms       for Possession
    IT IS ORDERED   that     COREY
    L.     ROBERTS shall have possession of the
    child at times mutually agreed to in advance    by COREY L. ROBERTS and
    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS.
    Page 7 of27
    /H
    08/28/14 10:03:45 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each period of possession that is
    mutually agreed to by COREY L. ROBERTS and CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS
    must be in writing, state the date which the mutual agreement was made, state the
    beginning date and time of COREY L. ROBERTS’ period of possession, state the
    ending date and time of COREY L. ROBERTS’ period of possession, and be
    signed by both parties.
    (c)        Undesignated Periods of Possession
    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS               shall have the right of possession of the
    child at      all   other times not specifically designated in this Possession Order for
    COREY L. ROBERTS.
    (d)      General Terms and Conditions
    Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Possession Order, the terms
    and conditions of possession of the child that apply regardless of the distance
    between the residence of a parent and the child are as follows:
    I.            Surrender-of Child by   CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS           -   CELIA
    CLANTON ROBERTS                    is   ORDERED    to surrender the child to    COREY    L.
    ROBERTS at the beginning of each period of COREY L. ROBERTS’s possession
    at   the residence of CELIA         CLANTON ROBERTS.
    2.    Return of Child by COREY L. ROBERTS - COREY L.
    ROBERTS is ORDERED to return the child to the residence of CELIA
    CLANT ON ROBERTS at the end of each period of possession.
    3.    Surrender of Child by COREY L, ROBERTS — COREY L.
    ROBERTS          ORDERED to surrender the child to CELIA CLANTON
    is
    ROBERTS, if the child is in COREY L. ROBERTS‘s possession or subject to
    COREY L. ROBERTS's control, at the beginning of each period of CELIA
    ON
    CLANT ROBERTS's exclusive periods of possession, at the place designated
    in this Possession Order.
    4.     Return of Child by CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS - CELTA
    CLANTON ROBERTS is ORDERED to retum the child to COREY L.
    ROBERTS, if COREY L. ROBERTS is entitled to possession of the child, at the
    end of each of CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS‘s exclusiveperiods of possession,
    at   the place designated in this Possession Order.
    5.      Personal Effects - Each conservator is        ORDEREDto return with
    the child the personal efiects that the child brought at the beginning of the period
    ofpossession.
    Page 8 of27
    08/28/14 10:03:47 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    6.     Designation of Competent Adult — IT IS ORDERED that CELIA
    CLANT ON ROBERTS may designate any competent adult to pick up and return
    the child, as applicable.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COREY L.
    ROBERTS is prohibited fi'om designated a competent adult to pick up and return
    the child, as applicable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a conservator or a
    designated competent adult be prment         when   the child is picked up or returned.
    7.     Inability to Exercise Possession — Each conservator is          ORDERED
    to give notice to the person in possession of the child on each occasion that the
    conservator will be unable to exercise that conservatofs right of possession for
    any specified period.
    8.      Written Notice — Written notice, including notice provided by
    electronic mail or facsimile, shall be deemed to have been timely made if received
    or, if applicable, postmarked before or at the time that notice is due‘      Each
    conservator  is       ORDERED
    to notify the other conservator of any change in the
    conservator's electronic mail address or facsimile number within twenty—four
    hours afier the change.
    This concludes the Possession Order.
    2.         Duration
    The    periods of possession ordered above apply to each child the subject of this
    suit   while that child    is   under the age of eighteen years and not othenvise emancipated.
    3.         Nonimer;/‘erence with Possession
    Except as expressly provided herein, IT IS          ORDERED      that neither conservator
    shall    take possession of the children during the other conservators period of possession
    unless there       is   a prior written agreement signed by both conservators or in case of an
    emergency.
    4.         Supervised Visitation
    IT IS   ORDERED that any and all periods of possession or access to the children
    exercised    by    COREY L. ROBERTS shall be under the direct and continuous supervision
    of a competent adult designated by CELIA CLANTON                  ROBERTS.
    Page 9 of27
    Vi’)
    08/28/14 10:03:46 -orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine cook
    5.       Termination of Orders
    The provisions of this decree          relating to conservatorship, possession, or access
    terminate on the remarriage of CELIA            CLANTON ROBERTS to COREY L. ROBERTS
    unless a nonparent or agency has been appointed conservator of the childrenunder
    chapter 153    of the Texas Family Code.
    Child Support
    IT IS   ORDERED that COREY L. ROBERTS is obligated to pay and shall pay to CELIA
    CLANT ON ROBERTS                child support    of four hundred eighty-nine dollars and fifty-five cents
    ($489.55) per month, with the          first   payment being due and payable on September        1,   2014 and a
    like   payment being due and payable on the 1‘ day of each month thereafler                until the first   month
    following the date of the earliest occurrence of one of the events specified below:
    L        any child reaches the age of eighteen years or graduates fi'om high school,
    whichever occurs      later,   subject to the provisions for support      beyond the age of eighteen years       set
    out below;
    2.       any child marries;
    3‘       any child dies;
    4.       the child enlists in the      armed forces of the United States and begins active service
    as   defined by   section 101     of title 10 of the United States Code; or
    5.       any child's disabilities are otherwise removed for general purposes.
    Thereafier,     COREY        L.   ROBERTS        is   ORDERED        to   pay to CELIA    CLANTON
    ROBERTS       child support      of three hundred ninety-one dollars and sixty-four cents ($391.64)
    per month, due and payable on the 1“ day of the               first   month immediately following     the date   of
    the earliest occurrence        of one of the events specified above for the other child and a        like   sum of
    Page 10 of27
    A-In
    08/28/14 10:03:49 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    three hundred ninety-one dollars              and   sixty-four cents ($391.64) due and payable on the 1“
    day of each month         thereal"ter until the next   occurrence of one of the events specified above for
    the other child‘
    If the child is eighteen years         of age and has not graduated from high school, IT IS
    ORDERED that COREY L. ROBERTS's obligation to pay child support to CELIA CLANT ON
    ROBERTS shall not temtinate but shall continue foras long as the child is enrolled-
    ].        under chapter 25 of the Texas Education Code                in   an accredited secondary school
    in a   program leading toward a high school diploma or under section 130.008 of the Education
    Code    in    courses for joint high school and junior college credit and                  is   complying with the
    minimum attendance requirements of subchapter C of chapter 25 of the Education Code or
    2.        on a   fi.rll-time basis in a private    secondary school in a program leading toward a
    high school diploma and         is   complying with the minimum attendance requirements imposed by
    that school.
    Withholding from Earnings
    IT IS    ORDERED          that   any employer of     COREY       L.    ROBERTS         shall   be ordered to
    withhold from earnings for child support from the disposable earnings of COREY L.                          ROBERTS       g
    for the support    of COREY        SEBASTIAN ROBERTS and LILY MARIE ROBERTS.
    IT IS   FURTHER ORDERED               that all   amounts withheld from the disposable earnings of
    COREY L. ROBERTS              by   the   employer and paid    in   accordance with the order to that employer
    shall constitute   a credit against the child support obligation. Payment of the                firll   amount of child
    support ordered paid by this decree through the                  means of withholding from earnings              shall
    discharge the child support obligation.             If the   amount withheld from earnings and                credited
    against the child support obligation is less than           I00 percent of the amount ordered to be paid by
    Page 11 of27
    flvll
    08/28/14 10:03:51 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    this decree, the         balance due remains an obligation of COREY L.              ROBERTS,     and    it   is   hereby
    ORDERED           that   COREY    L.   ROBERTS    pay the balance due          directly to the state disbursement
    unit specified below.
    On this date the Court signed an income Withholding             for Support.
    Emit
    IT IS     ORDERED that all payments shall be made through the state disbursement unit at
    Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit, P.O. Box 659791, San Antonio, _Texas 78265-9791, and
    thereafter promptly remitted to         CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS                   for the support of the children.
    IT IS   ORDERED that          each party shall pay,   when   due,   all fees   charged to that party by the state
    disbursement unit and any other agency statutorily authorized to charge a                fee.
    Changerof Employment
    IT IS     FURTHER ORDERED            that   COREY    L.    ROBERTS        shall notify this    Court and
    CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS by US.                     certified mail, return receipt requested, of any change of
    address and of any termination of employmem. This notice shall be given no later than seven
    days    after the   change of address or the termination of employment. This notice or a subsequent
    notice shall also provide the current address         of OOREY L.      ROBERTS and the name and address
    of his current employer, whenever that infomtation becomes available.
    Q]erk's Duties
    IT IS   ORDERED that,        on the request of a prosecuting attorney, the title IV-D agency, the
    friend of the Court, a domestic relations offioe,             CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS, COREY                            L.
    ROBERTS,          or an attorney representing         CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                     or    COREY          L.
    ROBERTS,          the clerk of this Court shall cause a certified copy of the           Income Withholding            for
    Support to be delivered to any employer.
    Page 12 of 27
    08/28/14 10:03:52 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Health Care
    1.     IT IS   ORDERED that CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS and COREY L. ROBERTS
    shall   each provide medical support for each child as set out             in this   order as additional child
    support for as long as the Court        may    order   CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                    and   COREY     L.
    ROBERTS       to provide support for the child       under sections l54.001 and 154.002 of the Texas
    Family Code.       Beginning on the day            CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                       and    COREY     L.
    ROBERTS's      actual or potential obligation to support a child under sections 154.00] and 154.002
    of the Family Code tenninates, IT IS            ORDERED        that   CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS                  and
    COREY L. ROBERTS are discharged               fi'om the obligations    set forth in this    medical support order
    with respect to that child, except for any failure             by a   parent to fully       comply with those
    obligations before that date.        IT IS    FURTHER ORDERED               that the cash medical support
    payments ordered below are payable through the state disbursement unit and subject to the
    provisions for withholding      fiom earnings provided above for other child          support payments.
    2.     Definitions     —
    “Health Insurance" means insurance coverage that provides basic health-care services,
    including usual physician services, office         visits,   hospitalization, and laboratory, X-ray,          and
    emergency services,     that   may be provided through a       health maintenance organization or other
    private or public organization, other than medical assistance under chapter                    32 of the Texas
    I
    Human Resources Code.
    "Reasonable cost" means the total cost of health insurance coverage for                all   children for
    which   COREY L. ROBERTS is responsible under a medical                 support order that does not exceed
    9 percent of COREY L.          ROBERTS   ‘s   annual resources, as described by section l54.062(b) of
    the Texas Family Code.
    Page 13 of27
    Prvlé
    08/28/14 10:03:53 orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    "Reasonable and necessary health-care expenses not paid by insurance and incun'ed by or
    on behalf of a    child" include, without limitation, any        copayments for ofiice         visits   or prescription
    drugs, the yearly deductible, if any, and medical, surgical, prescription drug, mental health-care
    services, dental,      eye care, ophthalmological, and orthodontic charges.                 These reasonable and
    necessary health-care expenses do not include expenses for travel to and from the health-care
    provider or for nonprescription medication.
    "Furnish“      means    -
    a.       to   hand deliver the document by a person eighteen years of age or older
    either to the recipient or to      a person   who   is   eighteen years of age orolder
    and permanently resides with the recipient;
    b.       to deliver the    document to the      recipient    by certified     mail, return receipt
    requested, to the recipient's last     known   mailing or residence address; or
    c.       to deliver the     document to the       recipient at the recipient's last         known
    mailing or residence address using any person or entity whose principal
    business   is   that   of a courier or deliverer of papers or documents             either
    within or outside the United States.
    3.        Findings on       Health        Insurance   Availabi|ity-    Having considered the            cost,
    accessibility,   and quality of health insurance coverage available to the             parties, the   Court finds:
    No parent has access to private health insurance at a reasonable cost.
    IT IS    FURTHER FOUND that the following orders regarding health-care coverage are in
    the best interest of the children.
    Page 14 of 27
    Ml
    08/28/14 10:03:55 orange County Districtclerk Scanned by: Elaine cook
    4‘         Provision of Health-Care Coverage -
    COREY L. ROBERTS                  is   ORDERED to apply,          within 30 days after entry of this order,
    for coverage        under a governmental medical assistance program or health plan for each child                       who
    is   the subject of this   suit.
    When       such health coverage           is   obtained,   COREY L ROBERTS                     is    ORDERED     to
    maintain the coverage in           full   force and elfect   on each child who          is   the subject of this suit as long
    as child support is      payable for that child, by paying           all   applicable fees required for the coverage,
    including but not limited to enrollment fees                       and premiums.               COREY     L.    ROBERTS     is
    ORDERED          to fumish     CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                            a true and correct copy of the health
    insurance policy or certification and a schedule of benefits within 15 days following the signing
    of this order.       COREY     L.    ROBERTS        is   FURTHER ORDERED to furnish CELIA CLANTON
    ROBERTS copies of the insurance cards and any other forms                            necessary for use of the insurance
    within 15 days following the signing of this order.                         COREY        L,   ROBERTS      is   ORDERED    to
    provide, within three days                of receipt by      COREY         L.    ROBERTS,          to   CELIA CLANTON
    ROBERTS         any insurance checks, other payments, or explanations of benefits relating to any
    medical expenses for the children that              CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                        paid or incurred.
    Pursuant to section 1S4,l83(c) of the Texas Family Code, the reasonable and necessary
    health-care expenses         of the children that are not reimbursed by health insurance or are not
    otherwise covered by the amount of cash medical support under section 154.182(b) are allocated
    as follows:       CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                       is   ORDERED          to   pay 50 percent and       COREY    L.’
    ROBERTS         is   ORDERED to pay 50 percent of the total unreimbursed                          health-care expenses that
    exceed the amount covered by health insurance.
    The party who incurs a health-care expense on behalf of the children                            is   ORDERED to
    Page [5 of 27
    §,,_:¢
    08/28/14 10:03:56 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    fixmish to the other party           all   forms, receipts,       bills,   statements, and explanations of benefits
    reflecting the uninsured portion of the health-care expenses within thirty days afier he or she
    receives them.    The nonincurring pany              is   ORDERED to pay his or her share or percentage of the
    uninsured portion of the health-care expenses either by paying the healthvcare provider directly
    or by reimbursing the incurring party for                  any advance payment exceeding        the incurring pany's
    share or percentage of the uninsured portion                  of the   health-care expenses within thirty days afier
    the nonincurring party receives the forms, receipts,                       bills,   statements, and explanations    of
    benefits.
    These provisions apply             to all   unreimbursed health—care expenses of any child who          is   the
    subject of this order for the provision                   of health—caie coverage      that are incurred while cash
    medical support   is   payable for that child.
    5.        WARNING A PARENT ORDERED TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE
    -
    OR TO PAY THE OTHER PARENT ADDITIONAL CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE COST OF
    HEALTH INSURANCE WHO FAILS TO DO S0 IS LIABLE FOR NECESSARY MEDICAL
    EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER                                                Tl-IE   E)fl’ENSES
    WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID IF HEALTH INSURANCE HAD BEEN PROVIDED, AND FOR
    THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS OR CONTRIBUTIONS,                                              IF    ANY, PAID
    ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN.
    Miscellaneous Child Support Provisions
    No Credit for Informal Payments
    IT IS   ORDERED that the child                support as prescribed in this decree shall be exclusively
    discharged in the manner ordered and that any direct payments                        made by   COREY L. ROBERTS
    to   CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS                         or any expenditlmcs incurred by          COREY    L.   ROBERTS
    Page 16 ofZ7
    D/_«lLo
    Elaine Cook
    08/28/14 10:03:57 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by:
    during   COREY L. ROBERTS‘s periods of possession of or access to the children, as prescribed
    in this decree, for food, clothing, gifis, travel, shelter,        or entertainment are deemed   in addition to
    and not in   lieu   of the support ordered   in this   decree.
    Support gs Obligation of Estate
    IT IS      ORDERED      that the provisions for child support in this decree shall            be an
    obligation of the estate of    COREY L. ROBERTS and shall not terminate on the death of COREY
    L.   ROBERTS. Payments          received for the benefit of the children, including payments from the
    Social Security Administration, Department             of Veterans Affairs or other governmental agency or
    survivor benefits,
    life   insurance proceeds, annuity payments, trust distributions, or retirement
    Any   remaining balance of the child support      is   an
    shall   be a   credit against this obligation.
    obligation of    COREY L. ROBERTS’s estate.
    Tennination of Orders on Remarriage of Parties but Not on Death of Obligee
    The provisions of this decree relating to amen! child support terminate on the rcmaniage
    of CELIA      CLANT ON ROBERTS          to   COREY        L.    ROBERTS   unless a nonparent or agency has
    been appointed conservator of the children under chapter I53 of the Texas
    Family Code.                       An
    obligation to pay child support under this decree does not terminate
    on the death of    CELIA
    CLANTON ROBERTS but continues asyan obligation to COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS and
    LILY MARIE ROBERTS.
    Page 17 of 27
    iél.~Ivr
    08/28/14 10:03:59 Orange County District                         C1ei'k_    Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Information Regarding Parties
    The   infon-nation required for   each party by section lO5,006(a) of the Texas Family Code
    is   as follows:
    Name: CELIA CLANTON              ROBERTS
    Social Security number:           "*"‘-”-3990
    Driver's license number:          15756492    Issuing      state:   Texas
    Current residence address:             West Wendy Lane, Orange, Texas 77630
    7 I 26
    Mailing address:                  7126 West Wendy Lane, Orange, Texas 77630
    Home telephone number:            (409) 553-4078
    Name of employer:
    Address of employment:
    Work telephone number:
    Name:     COREY L. ROBERTS
    Social Security number:           ***-”-2636
    Driver's license number           029303025     Issuing state: Texas
    Current residence address:         7705 Burton Road, Adrian, Michigan 49221
    Mailing address:                   7705 Burton Road, Adrian, Michigan 49221
    Home telephone number:
    Name of employer:                  Ferris   & Sons Milk Hauling Inc.
    Address of employment:            9480 Herold Highway, Addison, Michigan 49220
    Work telephone number:            (517) 547-7676
    Required Notices
    EACH PERSON WHO            IS   A PARTY TO THIS ORDER               IS   ORDERED TO NOTIFY
    EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND                           Tl-[E   STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY
    CHANGE          IN   THE PARTY'S CURRENT RESIDENCE ADDRESS, MAILING ADDRESS,
    HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME OF EMPLOYER, ADDRESS OF EMPLOYMENT,
    DRIVER‘S LICENSE           NUMBER AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE PARTY                               IS
    ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE IN ANY OF THE REQUIRED
    INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE
    REGISTRY ON OR BEFORE THE 60TH DAY BEFORE THE INTENDED CHANGE.                                       IF
    THE PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR COULD NOT HAVE                               KNOWN OF THE CHANGE IN
    Page 18 of 27
    A4!)
    08/28/14 10:04:00 Orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROVIDE 60-DAY NOTICE,                   Tl-[E   PARTY        IS   ORDERED TO GIVE
    NOTICE OF THE CHANGE ON OR BEFORE THE FIFTH DAY AFTER THE DATE THAT
    THE PARTY KNOWS OF T1-IE CHANGE.
    THE DUTY TO FURNISH               TI-HS   INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE
    COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY CONTINUES AS LONG AS ANY PERSON,
    BY VIRTUE OF THIS ORDEIL             IS   UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT
    OR ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD.
    FAILURE BY A PARTY TO OBEY THE ORDER OF THIS COURT TO PROVIDE
    EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY WITH THE
    CHANGE IN TI-IE REQUIRED INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN FURTHER LITIGATION
    TO ENFORCE THE ORDER, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF
    CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT                                  IN JAIL       FOR UP TO SIX
    MONTHS, A FINE OF UP TO $500 FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND A MONEY JUDGMENT
    FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
    Notice shall be given to the other pany by delivering a copy of the notice to the party by
    registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.     Notice shall be given to the Court by
    delivering a   copy of the notice   either in person to the clerk   of   this   Court or by registered or
    certified mail addressed to the clerk at     801 Division, Orange, Texas 77630.          Notice shall be
    given to the state case registry by mailing a copy of the notice to State Case Registry, Contract
    Services Section,   MC046S,   PO Box 12017, Austin, Texas 78711-2017.
    NOTICE TO ANY PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: YOU                                 MAY USE
    REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF CHILD CUSTODY SPECEFIED
    IN THIS   ORDER‘ A PEA/CE OFFICER                 WHO   RELIES   ON THE TERMS OF A COURT
    Page 19 of27
    (W1
    08/28/14 10:04:01 Orange County District clerk scanned by: Elaine cook
    ORDER AND THE OFFICER‘S AGENCY ARE ENTITLED TO THE APPLICABLE
    IMMUNITY AGAINST ANY CLAIM,               CIVI.L   OR OTHERWISE, REGARDING THE
    OFFICER'S     GOOD      FAITH ACTS PERFORMED IN THE SCOPE OF           TI-IE   OFFICER'S
    DUTIES IN ENFORCING         TI-IE   TERMS OF THE ORDER THAT RELATE TO CHILD
    CUSTODY. ANY PERSON           WHO KNOWINGLY         PRESENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT AN
    ORDER THAT IS INVALID OR NO LONGER IN EFFECT COMIMITS AN OFFENSE THAT
    MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY CONFINEMENT IN JAIL FOR AS LONG                  AS   TWO YEARS
    AND A FINE OF AS MUCH AS $10,000.
    Warning:   to Parties
    WARNINGS TO PARTIES: FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER FOR CHILD
    SUPPORT OR FOR POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD                    MAY   RESULT IN
    FURTHER LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF
    COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEIVIPT MAY BE PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT IN JAIL
    FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS, A FINE OF UP TO              $500   FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND A
    MONEY JUDGMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
    FAILURE OF A PARTY TO             MAKE A CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT TO THE
    PLACE AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY A COURT ORDER MAY RESULT                     IN   THE
    PARTY'S    NOT RECEIVING CREDIT FOR MAKING TH.E PAYTMENT.
    FAILURE OF A PARTY TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT DOES NOT JUSTIFY
    DENYING THAT PARTY COURT-ORDERED POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A
    CHILD.     REFUSAL BY A PARTY TO ALLOW POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS                    -TO   A
    CHILD DOES NOT J USTIF Y FAILURE TO PAY COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT TO
    THAT PARTY.
    Page 20 of 27
    M0
    06/28/14 10:04:02 orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Division qfMarit'uI Estate
    The Court finds that the following          is   a just and right division of the parties’ marital         estate,
    having due regard for the rights of each party and the children of the maniage.
    V
    Progeny to Husband
    IT IS    ORDERED AND DECREED that the husband, COREY L. ROBERTS, is awarded
    the following as his sole and separate property, and the wife             is   divested of all right,   title,   interest,
    and claim   in   and to that property:
    H-l.       All household fiirniture, fitmishings, fixtures, goods,                  an   objects, collectibles,
    appliances, and equipment in the possession              of the husband or subject to    his sole control.
    H-2.       All clothing, jewelry, and other personal effects in the possession of the husband
    -
    or subject to his sole control.
    H-3.       All sums of cash in the possession          of the husband or      subject to his sole control,
    including   fimds on       deposit, together with accrued but unpaid interest, in banks, savings
    institutions,    or other financial institutions, which accounts stand in the husbands sole                       name or
    from which the husband has the sole               right to    withdraw funds or which are subject                 to the
    husband's sole control.
    H-4.       All sums, whether matured or umnatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or
    otherwise, together with      all       increases thereof; the proceeds therefiom, and any other rights
    related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan,             Keogh   plan,    pension plan, employee stock
    option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or
    other benefits existing by reason of the husband's past, present, or fixture employment.
    Page 21 of27
    r3/Ll
    08/28/14 10:04:04 Orange County District Clerk Scanned. by: Elaine Cook
    Property to Wife
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED                          that the wife,   CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS,                   is
    awarded the following as her sole and separate property, and the husband                         is   divested of all right,
    title, interest,   and claim     in   and to that property:
    W-l.     All household fiimiture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, art objects, collectibles,
    appliances, and     equipment         in the   possession of the wife or subject to her sole control.
    W—2.    All clothing, jewelry, and other personal effects in the possession of the wife or
    I
    subject to her sole control.
    W-3.    All       sums of cash      in   the pofiession of the wife or subject to her sole control,
    including funds       on       deposit, together with accrued but unpaid interest, in banks, savings
    institutions, or   other financial institutions, which accounts stand in the wife's sole                     name or fi'om
    which the wife has the sale              right to     withdraw fimds or which are subject               to the wife's sole
    I
    control.
    W-4.    The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or
    otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights
    related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan,                   Keogh   plan, pension plan,         employee stock
    option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan,                      aocmed unpaid bonuses,           disability plan, or
    other benefits existing by reason of the wife's past, present, or future employment.
    W-5.    The 2002 Honda Odyssey EXIL motor                       vehicle, vehicle identification         number
    SFNRLI 80628023344,              together with      all   prepaid insurance, keys, and   title   documents.
    Page 22 of 27
    3";
    all
    ‘os/2e/14 10:04:05 Orange County District Clerk scanned by: aiéine cook
    Division of Debt
    Debts to Husband
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED that the husband, COREY L. ROBERTS,                                     shall pay,
    as a part of the di\n'sion    of the estate of the parties, and     shall   indemnify and hold the wife and her
    property harmless from any failure to so discharge, these items:
    H-1.      All debts, charges, liabilities,      and other obligations incurred solely by the husband
    unless express provision      is   made in this decree to the contrary.
    H-2.      All encumbrances, ad           valorem taxes,   liens,   assessments, or other charges due or to
    become due on      the real and personal property awarded to the husband in this decree unless
    express provision   is    made in this decree to the contrary.
    H-3.      The, debt     owed     to    Dupont Goodrich Federal          Credit Union, Account        Number
    7013815.
    Debts to Wife
    IT IS    ORDERED AND DECREED that the wife, CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS,                                      shall
    pay, as a part of the division of the estate of the panies, and shall indemnify and hold the
    husband and his property harmless from any failure to so discharge, these items:
    W-l.     The balance         due, including principal, interest,         and   all    other charges, on the
    promissory note payable to          Sattler   Automotive Group and given as        part     of the purchase price of
    and secured by a   lien   on the 2002 Honda Odyssey EXL motor vehicle awarded to                    wife.
    W-2.     All debts, charges, liabilities        and other obligations incurred solely by the wife
    unless express provision       is   made in this decree to the comrary.
    W—3.     All encumbrances, ad valorem taxes, liens, assessments, or other charges due or to
    become due on     the real and personal property awarded to the wife in this decree unless express
    Page 23 of 27
    5993.7:
    '08/28/14 10:04:06 orange'Count:y District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    provision      is   made     in this   decree to the oomrary.
    EEC;
    IT IS     ORDERED AND DECREED that each party                              shall send to the othervparty, within
    three days of         its    receipt, a     copy of any correspondence from a                   creditor or taxing authority
    concerning any potential               liability   of the other party.
    Attorney's Fees
    To   effect       an equitable division of the estate of the parties and as a part of the division,
    and   for services      rendered in connection with conservatorship and support of the children, each
    party shall be responsible for his or her                   own      attorney's fees, expenses,       and costs incurred as a
    result   of legal representation           in this case.
    Liability for Federal           Income Taxes for Prior Year
    IT IS     ORDERED AND DECREED that CELIA CLANT ON ROBERTS and COREY L.
    ROBERTS         shall   be equally responsible for             all   federal   income     tax liabilities   of the   parties   from
    the date of marriage through               December        31, 2013, and each party shall timely pay 50 percent of
    any deficiencies, assessments, penalties, or interest due thereon and                          shall   indemnify and hold the
    other party and his or her property harmless from 50 percent of such liabilities unless such
    additional tax, penalty, and/or interest resulted                      from a pany's omission of taxable income or
    claim of erroneous deductions.                     In   such case, the portion of the         tax, penalty, and/or interest
    relating to the omitted          income or claims of erroneous deductions                   shall   be paid by the party who
    earned the omitted income or proffered the claim for an erroneous deduction. The parties agree
    that nothing contained herein shall                 be constnned as or is intended as a waiver of any rights that a
    party has under the "Innocent Spouse" provisions of                            Internal   Revenue Code.
    Page 24 of 27
    Amt
    I08/28/14 10:04:08 Orange County District Clerk scanned by: Elaine cook
    Treatment/Allocation of Communny'            Income for Year of Divorce
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED tint, for the calendar year 2014,                      each party     shall file
    an individual income tax return in accordance with the lntemal Revenue Code.
    IT IS    ORDERED AND DECREED                    that for calendar year 2014, each party shall
    indemnify and hold the other party and his or her property harmless from any tax                                liability
    associated with the reporting party's individual tax retum for that year unless the parties have
    agreed to allocate their tax        liability in a   manner different from   that reflected   on   their returns.
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED that each party                   shall furnish   such information to the
    other party as        is   requested to prepare federal income tax returns for 2014 within thirty days of
    receipt      of a written request for the information, and      in   no event   shall the available information         be
    exchanged        later than   March   1,   20l5.   As requested information becomes available afier that               date,
    it   shall   be provided within ten days of receipt.
    IT IS    ORDERED AND DECREED                   that all   payments made to the other party                  in
    accordance with the allocation provisions for payment of federal income taxes contained                             in this
    Final Decree         of Divorce are not deemed income to the party receiving those payments but are
    part   of the property division and necessary for a just and           right division   of the parties‘   estate.
    Tax Exemption for Children
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED that CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS                                has the sole and
    exclusive right to claim the children,               COREY SEBASTIAN ROBERTS                   and LILY       MARIE
    ROBERTS,         as dependents     on her federal andlor state income taxes.
    Page 25 of 27
    5,14’
    '08/28/14 10:04:09 Orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine cook
    Permanent Injunctions as        to    Persons
    The Court finds       that,   because of the conduct of    COREY          L.   ROBERTS,      a permanent
    injunction against     him should be granted as appropriate            relief   because there   is    no adequate
    remedy   at law.
    The permanent injunction granted below           shall   be   etfective immediately and shall            be
    binding on    COREY      L.   ROBERTS; on       his agents, servants,    employees, and attorneys; and on
    those persons in active concert or participation with them        who     receive actual notice of this order
    by personal service or otherwise.
    IT IS       ORDERED AND DECREED                 that   COREY        L.    ROBERTS      is     permanently
    enjoined from:
    1.          Interfering in     any way with the Managing Conservator's possession of the
    children or taking or retaining possession of the children, directly or in concert with other
    persons, except as permitted by order of the Coun.
    2.          Removing the children from the State of Texas.
    Court Costs
    IT IS   ORDERED AND DECREED that costs of court                    are to be borne    by the party who
    incurred them.
    Discharge from Discovery Retention Requirement‘
    IT IS     ORDERED AND DECREED                that the parties    and     their respective   attomeys are
    discharged from the requirement of keeping and storing the documents produced                      in this   case in
    accordance with rule 191.4(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Page 26 of 27
    08/28/14 10:04:10 orange County District Clerk Scanned by: Elaine Cook
    Clanfving. Orders
    Without affecting the finality of this Final Decree of Divorce,                           this   Court expressly
    reserves the right to          make orders necessary to clarify and           enforce this decree.
    Relief Nor Granted
    IT IS         ORDERED AND DECREED that all relief requested in this case and not expressly
    granted    is       denied.    This    is   alfinal judgment, lbr which      let   execution and   all   writs and processes
    necessary to enforce this judgment issue. This judgment finally disposes of all claims and                               all
    parties   and       is   appealable.
    Date of Judgment
    SlGNEDon                                     QQ       am‘/0
    P       SIDING
    APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
    JOE D. ALFORD
    Attorney at Law
    lO5 South Market Street
    Orange, Texas 77630
    Tel: (409)          882-9014
    Fax: (40             82-0564
    By:
    JOE        .
    ALr~‘6RD
    Attorney for Peti oner
    State Bar No. 01012500
    jd.alford@hotmail.com
    Page 27 of 27
    l3:_«2:¥’«l
    Tex. R. Civ.            1’.   107
    This document             is current    through February 4, 2015
    Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART                                                                                         II.
    RULES OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 5. Citation
    Rule 1 7 Return of Service
    (a)   The officer or authorized person executing the citation must complete a return of service, The return may,                                       but   need
    not. be endorsed on or attached to the citation.
    (b)   The retum,               together with any           document         to   which   it is   attached,   must include the following information:
    (1)          the cause     number and case name;
    (2)          the court in which the case                  is filed;
    (3)          a description of what was served;
    (4)          the date and time the process                  was received         for service;
    (5)          the person or entity served;
    (6)          the address served;
    (7)          ’the   date of service or attempted service;
    (8)          the    manner of delivery of            service or attempted service;
    (9)          the    name of the person who served or attempted                         to serve the process;
    (10) if the person              named in (9) is a process server certified under order of the Supreme                                 Court, his or her
    identification     number and the expiration date of his or her certification; and
    (11)         any other information required by rLle or law.
    (c)    When           the citation    was served by              registered or certified mail as authorized by             Rule   106, the return   by the officer
    or authorized person must also contain the return receipt with the addressee’s signature.
    (<1)   When the officer or authorized person                            has not served the citation, the return shall show the diligence used by the
    officer or authorized person to execute the                          same and the cause of failure to execute it, and where the defendant is
    to    be found,          if ascertainable.
    (e)    The          officei‘ or authorized person                 who   serves or attempts to serve a citation must sign the return, If the return               is
    signed by a person other than a sheriff, constable, or the clerk of the court, the return must either be verified or be
    signed under penalty of perjury. A return signed under penalty of perjury must contain the statement below in                                                 ~
    substzuitially the following form:
    "My name              is                       ,   my    date of birth       is
    (First)     (Middle)             (Last)
    j,               and    my   address   is       T, _»_ _,           ,          and
    (Street)                (City)          (State)(Zip     Code)
    .   I   declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
    correct.
    (Country)
    A. Q9\
    Page 2 of 2
    Tex. R. Civ.         1’.   107
    Executed   in           County, State of          ,   on the      _day of                        ,
    (Month)          "(Year)
    Dec1a.rant"
    (1')     Where citation is executed by an alternative method as authorized by Rule                                  106, proof of service shall be      made   in
    the manner ordered by the court.
    (g)      The   return and any        document   to   which   it   is   attached   must be           filed   with the court and    may be   filed electronically
    or by facsimile,      if   those methods of filing are available.
    (h)      No default judgment shall          be granted in any cause proof of service as provided by this rLle or by Rules 108
    until
    or 108a, or as ordered by the court in the event citation is executed by an alternative method under Rule 106, shall
    have been on file with the clerk of the court ten days, exclusive of the day of filing and the day of judgment.
    History
    Amended by Texas Supreme                  Court, Misc. Docket No. 11-9250. effective January                           1,   2012.
    SOURCE:
    Arts.     2034 and 2036.
    Change: That part of the rLle derived from Art. 2034 has been changed only textually. The last sentence of the
    supersedes Art. 2036 in the District and County Courts in harmony with the new     making the time for answer date
    Q
    from the day of        service.
    Change by amendment               effective January 1, 1978: Provides                manner of return when                  service by mail or   by an   alternative
    '
    method.
    Change by amendment effective January 1, 1981: The only changes are the references to E_u_l_e_ 106.
    Change by amendment effective January 1. 1988: Amendments are made to conform to changes in 111% 103.
    Change by amendment effective September 1, 1990: To state more directly that a default judgment can be obtained when
    the defendant has been served with process in a foreign country pursuant to the provisions of                                         flag     108 or 108a.
    EDITOR’S NOTE.               --                                                                        ,
    Tefl Supreme Court, Misc. Docket No. 11-9250 provides: "The provisions allowing a return of                                                    service to be filed
    electronically or by facsimile when those methods of filing are available supersede any contradictory                                          local   rlli or   court
    orders."
    PUBLICATION REFERENCES. «See                               Litigation Guide, Ch. 31, Service                      on Residems; Ch.     32, Personal Jurisdiction
    and Service on Nonresidents.
    See also Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§ l7.021—17.025.
    2011 amendment, by 11—9250, rewrote the first two sentences of the first undesignated paragraph, which read:
    ”The return
    of the officer or authorized person executing the citation shall be endorsed on or attached to the same; it shall state when
    the citation was served and the manner of service and be signed by the officer officially or by the authorized person. The
    return of citation by an authorized person shall be verified.” and gave them the (a) designation; added (b); gave the second
    ”if ascertainable” for
    and third sentences of the first undesignated paragraph the (c) and (d) designations; in (d), substituted
    ”if he can ascertain”; added (e); gave the second undesignated paragraph       the  (f) designation;  added  (g); gave the third
    undesignated paragraph the (h) designation; and in (h), deleted "the citation, or process under Ri_4le_s 108 or 108a, with" after
    "cause until”, and added "by an altemative method”.
    Texas Rules
    Copyright     © 2015      by Matthew Bender     & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis                         Group. All rights reserved.
    Tex. R. Civ.           I’.   239
    This document   is   current through February 4,    2015
    Texas Court Rules    > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART II.
    RULES       OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 11. Trial 0 Causes >
    A.APPEARANCE AND PROCEDURE
    @
    »
    Rule             Judgment by Default
    Upon such       of the docket, or at any time after :1 defendant is required to answer, the plaintiff may in temi time take
    call
    judgment by default against such defendant if he has not previously filed an answer, and provided that return of service
    shall have been on file with the clerk for the length of time required by Rule 107.
    History
    Amended by Texas Supreme       Court, Misc. Docket No. ll—9250, effective January        1,   2012.
    EDITOR’S NOTE.        --
    Texas Supreme Court, Misc. Docket No. ll~9250 provides: ”The provisions allowing a return of service to be filed
    electronically or by facsimile when those methods of filing are available supersede any contradictoiy local or court
    orders.”
    PUBLICATION REFERENCES.            —-See   Litigation Guide, Ch. 100, Default Judgment.                              .
    2011 amendment, by G.O. 11-9250, substituted ”return of service” for "citation with the officer’s return thereon".
    Texas Rules
    Copyright   © 2015 by Matthew Bender & Company. Inc.    a   member of the LexisNexis Group.   All rights reserved.
    A   44\
    Tex. R. Civ.        R   301
    This document      is   current through February 4, 2015
    Texas Court Rules    > STATE RULES >                            TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART II.
    RULES       OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND                         COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 11. Trial 0 Causes >
    H. IUDGMENTS
    Rule    .@ Judgments
    The judgment of      the court shall   conform                                       proved and the verdict, if any, and shall
    to the pleadings, the nature of the case
    be so framed                                   which
    as to give the party all the relief tohe may  be entitled either in law  or equity. Provided, that upon motion
    and reasonable notice the court may  render judgment  non obstante  veredicto  if a directed  verdict would have been proper,
    and provided further that the court may, upon like motion and  notice, disregard   any  jury finding  on a question that has no
    support in the evidence. Only one final judgment shall be rendered     in any  cause   except  where   it is otherwise specially
    provided by law. Judgment may, in a proper case. be given for or against one or more of    several plaintiffs, and for or against
    one or more of several defendants or intervenors.
    Texas Rules
    Copyright   ©   2015 by Matthew Bender    & Company, Inc.       a member of the LexisNcxis Group. All rights reserved.
    bzr¢p\