Cicily Joseph v. Sunny Joseph

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-11-01096-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 3, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On May 3, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued an opinion regarding Cicily Joseph's appeal against Sunny T. Joseph concerning child support modification. Cicily alleged that Sunny had fraudulently misrepresented his income during mediation, justifying a request for increased child support. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Sunny, leading to Cicily's appeal on eight grounds, including errors in directing a verdict, excluding evidence, and failing to award attorney’s fees and interest on underpaid support.

The background of the case indicates that Cicily and Sunny, who divorced with three minor children, initially agreed on a monthly child support payment of $550 based on Sunny's income representations. Cicily later discovered that the Texas Comptroller was pursuing Sunny for unreported earnings from his business, prompting her to seek an increase in support obligations. 

In reviewing Cicily's appeal, the court noted that a directed verdict is appropriate when no evidence raises a fact issue essential to the plaintiff's case. The court examined whether Cicily presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a material and substantial change in Sunny's financial situation since the initial order. Ultimately, the court found that Cicily did not provide adequate evidence to support her claims, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The trial included testimonies from Sunny and his son Richard, but the court concluded there was insufficient proof of any misrepresentation or improvement in Sunny's finances.

Sunny asserted he could only afford $550 in child support at the time it was agreed upon, with no evidence provided regarding his income at that time. Over the next two years, he earned less than $30,000 from real estate and convenience store employment. After injuring his knee, Sunny became unemployed and denied having any ownership interest in the convenience stores. Richard, who also worked at the stores, testified about possible ownership but lacked personal knowledge of Sunny’s income. Cicily presented sales reports from the stores, but these did not establish Sunny's earnings. The trial court directed a verdict against Cicily in her modification suit, which was upheld on appeal, overruling her various complaints about this outcome, including her request for attorney’s fees. 

Cicily's complaint regarding the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law was deemed waived, as her request was made prematurely, nine days before the judgment was signed. She also prematurely notified the court that its findings were overdue, which did not preserve her complaint. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no errors were committed or preserved for review. Cicily's additional complaint about erroneous evidentiary rulings lacked specificity and was not adequately addressed in her brief.

Cicily's challenge to the trial court's decision to sustain Sunny's hearsay objection regarding a letter from the Texas Comptroller is deemed waived due to inadequate briefing, as she failed to provide supporting arguments or legal authority. Even if her complaint had been preserved, any alleged error related to the trial court's lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law is not considered reversible. The presumption of harm is countered by the record, which demonstrates that Cicily did not suffer any injury, particularly since Sunny's motion for directed verdict was based solely on Cicily's lack of sufficient evidence showing a significant change in Sunny's financial circumstances. Cicily has not articulated how she was hindered in presenting her case on appeal.