Laura Keene Redwine f/k/a Laura Keene-Ghedi v. William E. Ghedi--Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 4th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Laura Keene Redwine f/k/a Laura Keene-Ghedi v. William E. Ghedi--Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 04-02-00859-CV

Case Date: 12/17/2003

Plaintiff: SERGIO LOPEZ

Defendant: EDELMIRA LOPEZ--Appeal from 398th District Court of Hidalgo County

Preview:Laura Keene Redwine f/k/a Laura Keene-Ghedi v.
William E. Ghedi--Appeal from 285th Judicial District
Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00859-CV
Laura Keene REDWINE,
Appellant
v.
William E. GHEDI,
Appellee
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1993-CI-17693
Honorable Patrick Boone, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2003
AFFIRMED
Laura Keene Redwine ("Redwine") and William E. Ghedi ("Ghedi") were divorced on April 25, 1995. On April 30,
2002, Ghedi filed a petition for a post-decree qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). The petition asked the trial
court to award the benefits of Ghedi's retirement plan, including the right to designate "any person of [Ghedi's]
choosing to be entitled to the Joint and Survivor Annuity upon his death," to Ghedi. The trial court granted the petition
and entered a QDRO awarding the benefits of Ghedi's retirement plan to Ghedi. Redwine appeals the QDRO, arguing
that because Ghedi's retirement plan is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and
because ERISA preempts state law, it was error for the trial court to enter the QDRO.
Redwine has failed, however, to preserve this issue for appeal. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate
review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion
that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to
make the trial court aware of the complaint. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d 697, 698
(Tex. 1993) (rejecting due process and equal protection argument because the party failed to assert it at the trial level).
Here, the record fails to show that Redwine presented her complaint to the trial court. (1) Accordingly, she failed to
preserve her complaint for appellate review.
Fundamental error is nonwaivable and may be raised for the first time on appeal. Mann v. Ramirez, 905 S.W.2d 275,
278 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1995, writ denied). Here, however, there is no claim of fundamental error. Accordingly,
we overrule Redwine's sole issue and affirm the order of the trial court.
Karen Angelini, Justice
1. We note that Ghedi, citing the QDRO for support, states in his brief that "[over] Appellant's objection, the trial court
granted the Petition of Appellee, and entered a Qualified Domestic Relation Order." The record reflects that Redwine
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/16725.html[8/20/2013 7:40:01 PM]

approved the QDRO "as to form only." It does not, however, reflect that Redwine specifically objected to the QDRO
on the grounds that the QDRO violates ERISA. We find no such objection by Redwine in the record.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/16725.html[8/20/2013 7:40:01 PM]

Download 16725.pdf