Wesley Wren Massey v. Irene Gonzales Massey--Appeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-0131-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
WESLEY WREN MASSEY,
Appellant
v.
IRENE GONZALES MASSEY,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B36869-0910; HON. EDWARD LEE SELF, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Wesley Wren Massey appeals from an order of the trial court denying
his motion to modify or rescind an order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust
account. 1 On March 16, 2012, the trial court ordered that $231 in court costs 2 incurred
in his divorce action be paid out of his inmate trust account. The lawsuit was dismissed
1
The accounts are no longer referred to as trust accounts under the statute.
2
The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to modify or rescind the order to withdraw
funds states that this amount represents “court costs.” Furthermore, appellant was acting pro se in the
lawsuit so there was no court-appointed attorney.
for want of prosecution. On appeal, appellant argues that 1) the trial court had no
authority to order the withdrawal of funds when there was no active cause number, and
2) the trial court erred in ordering the withdrawal of funds in excess of the percentage
amount allowed under § 501.014(e) of the Government Code. We affirm the order.
We review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a challenge to a withdrawal
notification for an abuse of discretion. Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.
–Amarillo 2011, no pet.).
In appellant’s motion to modify or rescind the order to
withdraw funds, he asserted no legal basis for modification or rescission. To preserve
error on appeal, the complaint must state the grounds for the ruling sought with
sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. TEX. R. APP. P.
33.1(a)(1)(A). The failure to do so waives error.
Appellant did request in his motion that the trial court consolidate the order with
its withdrawal orders in two criminal cases. As he explains on appeal, he wants only
one deduction of 10% for all three cases out of his account for each deposit made.
Section 501.014(e) does not place a limitation on the percentage of withdrawals that
can be made. Nor has appellant cited us to legal authority creating such a limitation.
Accordingly, we overrule appellant's issues and affirm the trial court’s withdrawal
order.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
