Kristi Rene Hursley a/k/a Kristi Rene Johns v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Criminal Court No 7 of Tarrant County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2002 » Kristi Rene Hursley a/k/a Kristi Rene Johns v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Criminal Court No 7 of Tarrant County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-02-00274-CR

Case Date: 10/23/2002

Plaintiff: Kristi Rene Hursley a/k/a Kristi Rene Johns

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from County Criminal Court No 7 of Tarrant County

Preview:In the Matter of the Marriage of Josephine Marie Collins and Donald Earl Collins and in the Interest of J.C.C. and S.M.C., Children--Appeal from 413th District Court of Johnson County
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00309-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF Josephine Marie Collins AND DONALD EARL COLLINS and In the Interest of J.C.C. and S.M.C., Children

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. D2003-05797 MEMORANDUM Opinion

Donald Earl Collins appeals his divorce from Josephine Marie Collins. We affirm. In Donald s first and second issues, he complains of the trial court s rendition of a protective order and its finding that Donald committed family or domestic violence. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 82.001-88.006 (Vernon 2002 & Supp. 2004-2005), 153.004 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). In Donald s first issue, he contends that Josephine did not plead for the order and findings. In Donald s second issue, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony on the issue. Donald does not point to any trial-court objection to trial of the issues by consent, and thus waives the issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); In re S.A.P., 156 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. 2005). We overrule Donald s first and second issues. In Donald s third issue, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling Donald s motion for continuance. Donald s oral motion preserved nothing for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 251; Villegas v. Carter, 711
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6118.html[8/20/2013 7:20:04 PM]

S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986); Taherzadeh v. Ghaleh-Assadi, 108 S.W.3d 927, 928 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003, pet. denied). We overrule Donald s third issue. In Donald s fourth issue, he contends that the trial court erred in appointing Josephine sole managing conservator and ordering that Donald have only supervised visitation with the children. Having made the family-violence finding, the trial court did not have discretion to appoint Donald joint managing conservator. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 153.004(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005); Pe a v. Pe a, 8 S.W.3d 639, 639 (Tex. 1999). Nor, the trial court having made the finding, did the court abuse its discretion in finding that Donald did not rebut the presumption that unsupervised visitation was not in the children s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 153.004(d)-(e) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005); In re Marriage of Stein, 153 S.W.3d 485, 488 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2004, no pet.). We overrule Donald s fourth issue. In Donald s fifth issue, he contends that the trial court erred in its division of the community estate and in awarding certain property to Josephine as her separate property. Donald argues that the trial court erroneously based its decisions on the family-violence finding, and that Josephine did not specifically plead for the award. Donald does not point to any trial-court objection to trial of the issue by consent, and thus waives the issue; and Donald does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 7.001 (Vernon 1998); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); S.A.P., 156 S.W.3d at 577; Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Tex. 1998). We overrule Donald s fifth issue. In Donald s sixth issue, he contends that the trial court erred in distributing the proceeds of the parties federal income tax refund. Donald complains that the trial court did so at the hearing on Donald s motion for new trial, and did so without specific pleadings. Donald does not point to any trial-court objection to trial of the issue by consent, and thus waives the issue; and Donald does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 7.001; Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); S.A.P., 156 S.W.3d at 577; Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d at 589. We overrule Donald s sixth issue. In Donald s seventh issue, he contends that the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support. Donald argues that Josephine did not plead for retroactive child support. Donald does not point to any trial-court objection to trial of the issue by consent, and thus waives the issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); S.A.P., 156 S.W.3d at 577; In re Tucker, 96 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (plea for child support puts retroactive support at issue). We overrule Donald s seventh issue. Having overruled Donald s issues, we affirm the judgment. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna (Justice Vance concurs in the judgment) Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed June 15, 2005 [CV06]

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6118.html[8/20/2013 7:20:04 PM]

Download 6118.pdf