Patrick Daus v. Maria Daus,et Al

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-13-00060-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 14, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed an order from the 255th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, confirming a Nevada court's "Order for Assignment of Wages" against Patrick Daus, who appealed the decision. Patrick challenged the wage withholding order on two grounds: it allegedly violated the Texas Constitution's prohibition against wage garnishment for debt and the Equal Protection Clauses of both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. 

Patrick and Maria Daus, married in February 1986, separated in April 2001 and entered a non-modifiable separation agreement governed by North Carolina law, which required Patrick to pay child support and alimony to Maria, who relocated to Nevada with their three children. After Patrick failed to make the required payments, Maria initiated legal action in Nevada, resulting in a judgment on April 12, 2010, confirming Patrick owed $5,000 monthly in spousal support and an outstanding balance of $86,500 in arrears. The Nevada court also ordered Patrick's Texas employer to withhold $6,938 monthly for both child and spousal support.

Patrick did not appeal the Nevada ruling but later sought to contest the wage assignment order in Texas, claiming it was not the controlling order and breached their agreement. His attempts for relief were denied, and after trial, the Texas court upheld the Nevada order's validity, concluding that Patrick did not provide a valid defense against it. In his appeal, Patrick argued that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the Full Faith and Credit Clause concerning the enforceability of the Nevada order.

Patrick contends that while the Nevada court has definitively determined Marie’s right to spousal maintenance, the enforcement of this order in Texas is not permissible due to Texas constitutional restrictions on wage garnishment for debts other than child support and spousal maintenance. The trial court's ruling is subject to de novo review, focusing on whether it appropriately recognized the full faith and credit due to the Nevada order, as mandated by Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. A valid foreign judgment must be acknowledged and enforced in Texas, irrespective of conflicting state laws or policies, unless the opposing party successfully demonstrates exceptions to this requirement. Such exceptions include the judgment being interlocutory, lacking jurisdiction, being obtained through fraud, or falling under statutory limitations. In this case, Patrick, as the party challenging the Nevada order, has failed to provide any basis for an exception, acknowledging the legitimacy of the Nevada ruling but arguing solely against its enforcement due to Texas constitutional limitations. The enforcement of a foreign court's order might still allow for wage garnishment, even if Texas law would not permit a similar action. The court clarifies that the situation does not involve seeking a Texas court order for garnishment, which would contravene Texas law.

Maria sought Texas to recognize, but not enforce, a valid order from Nevada, which the Texas courts are not required to act upon. The court affirmed the trial court's confirmation of the Nevada order, referencing precedent that Texas courts should not intervene when no enforcement action is requested. Patrick's claim of a violation of his equal protection rights was raised for the first time on appeal, and he failed to preserve this issue as required by Texas appellate rules, leading to its waiver. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, determining that the costs of the appeal are to be borne by Patrick Daus. The judgment was entered on May 14, 2014, by Justice Molly Francis.