Supportkids, Inc. formerly Child Support Enforcement, Inc. v. Cynthia Morris--Appeal from 253rd District Court of Chambers County

Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 17, 2005

Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 17, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00390-CV

____________

SUPPORTKIDS, INC., FORMERLY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, INC., Appellant

V.

CYNTHIA MORRIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19,150

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I write separately because I believe a more obvious, fundamental reason exists for reversing the order. Bereft of details the glue that allows this type of order to withstand the inevitable challenges the order lacks what it needs most to survive judicial scrutiny.

For example, regarding numerosity, the order states, The Court finds that the members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; thus, the numerosity requirement of TRCP 42(a)(1) is met. No details or further information is given on this point. To prove that it performed a rigorous analysis of the case before certifying the class, the court stated, This Court performed a rigorous analysis before ruling on class certification to determine whether all prerequisites to certification have been met. Again, no details or further information is given.

Both of these statements are conclusions without any supporting data, as are the other statements in the order. The order claims to contain details, but in fact, it does not.[1]

For this reason, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(c), under Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. 2000), and under Schein v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675, 689 (Tex. 2002), this order must be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court.

/s/ Wanda McKee Fowler

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 17, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Seymore. (Seymore, J. majority.)

[1] We require a detailed analysis of the case because the appellate court must review the underpinnings for the trial court s rulings. The details are necessary to (1) provide the reasons underlying the court s decision and (2) to enable the appellate courts to rigorously review the trial court s decision. One cannot rigorously review a conclusion without the details that led to the conclusion.