CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 14–15–00925–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

in the Interest of R.S.T., a Child

The Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG) appeals a trial court's default judgment in a child support case. The trial court granted Patrick Eugene Bedford's motion to modify a registered Louisiana child support order, subsequently ordering the Harris County Auditor's Office to cease child support arrearage withholdings. The OAG contends the trial court erred in modifying the foreign support order, arguing that Bedford failed to timely contest its registration, and the court lacked jurisdiction under Texas Family Code sections 159.611 and 159.613 without evidence of party residences. Furthermore, the OAG asserts that Bedford used an incorrect legal remedy to challenge the administrative writ of withholding. The OAG seeks a reversal of the trial court's judgment.

Child SupportFamily LawAppellate LawDefault JudgmentJurisdictionForeign Support OrderUIFSAWithholding OrderPaternity DisputeTexas Family Code
References
12
Case No. 13-10-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2011

in the Interest of C. A. C., a Child

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for new trial in a child support and spousal maintenance modification case. The OAG claimed it did not receive proper notice of a February 2, 2010 hearing, which led to a default judgment regarding child support arrearages. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the OAG failed to provide competent evidence, such as a verified motion or affidavit, to establish the first element of the Craddock test—that its failure to appear was due to mistake or accident, not conscious indifference. The appellate court concluded that the OAG's unsworn allegations and arguments were insufficient to meet its burden.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementCraddock TestChild SupportSpousal MaintenanceFamily LawAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionDue Process
References
31
Case No. 13-11-00592-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2012

in the Interest of Z.M.R., a Child

David George Rodriguez appealed the foreclosure of his inmate trust account for child support arrearages, challenging the trial court's denial of his request for a bench warrant or to appear via teleconference/video. He also contested the retroactive application of Family Code section 154.062 and the definition of "net resources." The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying his physical presence, noting he was afforded other means to present evidence, such as affidavits. Furthermore, the court clarified that child support lien collection under section 157.317 does not require a net resources calculation or exempt monetary gifts. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Child Support ArrearagesInmate Trust AccountForeclosure LienBench WarrantTeleconference AppearanceVideo AppearanceAccess to CourtsNet Resources DefinitionFamily CodeAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Daigle

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to suspend his child support obligation and denied the defendant's motion for counsel fees. The parties were divorced in 2001 and have two sons. The plaintiff sought to terminate child support, including private school tuition, based on the sons' abandonment, which he attributed largely to the defendant. The Supreme Court suspended child support, concluding that while the defendant had not willfully manipulated the sons, the sons had abandoned the plaintiff and were constructively emancipated. On appeal, the court reversed the suspension of child support, holding that the sons, aged 16 and 14, were not of employable age, a necessary prerequisite for constructive emancipation, and thus could not forfeit their right to support. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

Child SupportConstructive EmancipationParental AbandonmentVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewEmployable AgeSaratoga CountyCounsel FeesJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. 12-18-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2019

in the Interest of B. L. W., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Brandon Lynn Walker against a trial court's order concerning conservatorship and child support for B.L.W., a child he shares with Kamena Taquay Handsborough. Brandon challenged the custody arrangements, child support calculations, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the refusal to grant additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his motion to suspend judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conservatorship decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in appointing both parents as joint managing conservators and Kamena with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the order regarding child support due to an inconsistency in the ordered amounts, which were not properly supported by evidence or calculation guidelines. All other issues raised by Brandon were overruled.

Child CustodyChild SupportParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawConservatorshipMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawMotion to Suspend Judgment
References
43
Case No. 04-01-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2002

In Re TLK

This case involves an appeal by Anthony Kalenkosky against an order enforcing his child support obligation. Kalenkosky raised four issues on appeal, challenging the exclusion of evidence of non-payment, the inclusion of a dormant 1985 arrearage judgment, the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees, and the constitutionality of the presumption of validity of child support payments. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees, finding insufficient evidence to prove their reasonableness. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment, ruling against Kalenkosky on the spoliation presumptions and the applicability of the statute of limitations to the child support arrearage judgment sought by the Office of the Attorney General. The fourth issue regarding the presumption of validity was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Child SupportEnforcementAppealAttorney's FeesSpoliation of EvidenceDormant JudgmentStatute of LimitationsOffice of the Attorney GeneralConstitutional RightsContempt
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit

This case concerns the priority of four liens against a $7,500 settlement received by Mr. Daniels. The liens include his attorney's charging lien, a workers' compensation lien by Legion Insurance, a child support lien by the Child Support Collection Unit for over $20,000, and a judgment lien by former landlord Robert Dykes. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, determined that the attorney's charging lien takes first priority based on logic and public policy, as the attorney created the fund benefiting all lienors. Legion Insurance's workers' compensation lien received second priority, as the Child Support Collection Unit had already had an opportunity to levy on the initial workers' compensation payments. The Child Support Collection Unit was placed third, and Robert Dykes's judgment lien was last. The court rejected arguments that CPLR 5242 (d) gave child support priority over statutory and charging liens in this specific context.

Lien PriorityAttorney's Charging LienWorkers' Compensation LienChild Support LienJudgment LienCPLR 5242 (d)Workers’ Compensation Law § 29Domestic Relations Law § 240Public PolicyEquitable Principles
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1990

Steel v. Steel

In this divorce action, the defendant mother sought pendente lite child support for their four children. Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob presided over the case, applying the newly effective Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to determine the support amount. The court meticulously calculated the combined parental income, applied statutory deductions and percentages for income above and below $80,000, and apportioned child care and medical expenses. Recognizing the significant income disparity, the father was ordered to pay an annual sum of $53,212 for child support, along with 100% of the children's reasonable medical and dental expenses.

Child SupportPendente LiteDivorceCSSAIncome CalculationChild Care ExpensesMedical ExpensesStandard of LivingParental Income DisparityDomestic Relations Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huddleston v. Rufrano

The mother appealed a Family Court order denying her objections to a child support magistrate's decision, which directed the father to pay $155 per week. The appellate court modified the order, increasing the father's child support obligation to $259 per week. The court found that the Support Magistrate failed to properly impute additional income to the father, including payments from his business, A & J Drain, Inc., and earnings generated by his father-in-law. The father's testimony regarding his finances was deemed incredible. The appellate court determined the father's annual income to be $78,830.82, justifying the increased child support payment.

Child SupportIncome ImputationSelf-EmploymentWorkers' CompensationCredibilityAppellate ReviewFamily LawModification of SupportFinancial DisclosureSupport Magistrate
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,802 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational