Estate of Ronald Wesley Shortes v. Claudia Rachel Shortes Jones also known as Claudia Rachel Mann Appeal from 250th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00124-CV Estate of Ronald Wesley Shortes, Appellant v. Claudia Rachel Shortes Jones also known as Claudia Rachel Mann, Appellee FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-85-217442, THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION The Estate of Ronald Wesley Shortes appeals from a judgment granting Claudia Jones’s motion to enforce two child support orders. In one issue, the Estate argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. BACKGROUND Ronald Wesley Shortes and Claudia Rachel Jones married in 1970; Shortes filed for divorce in 1974. They agreed that Jones would have primary custody of their three-year-old son and that Shortes would have reasonable visitation rights. The district court incorporated the agreement into the final decree of divorce and ordered Shortes to make monthly child support payments. In 1986, Jones filed motions to hold Shortes in contempt for failure to pay child support and to modify the decree. On July 21, 1986, the district court entered an order finding that Shortes was $2,800 in arrears, held him in contempt of court, and ordered him to pay that sum to Jones. On July 28, 1986, the court granted Jones’s motion to modify and ordered Shortes to pay $300 per month in child support for the following three months and $350 every month thereafter. Shortes died in 2019. In September of 2020, Jones filed a motion to enforce the two orders against the Estate. She alleged that $138,900.97 was due under the July 21, 1986 order and $178,025.02 under the July 28, 1986 order and that Shortes had paid nothing of either sum. She sought both cumulative money judgments and “a judicial determination of the amount of child support arrearages . . . for the purpose of execution and levy on the financial accounts of the estate, and perfecting the child support lien that arose by operation of law against the obligor’s real and personal property when the support arrearage came into existence.” She attached to her motion copies of the divorce decree, the orders, and two spreadsheets listing the arrearages to date. Following a live hearing, the district court rendered judgment for Jones. The district court found $138,900.97 in arrearages under the July 21, 1986 order and $178,025.02 under the July 28, 1986 order and rendered cumulative money judgments against the Estate in both amounts. Further, and “in lieu of an award of cumulative judgment and for the purpose of execution and levy on the financial accounts of the estate and perfection of the child support lien,” the district court determined that “the total amount of child support arrearages due and owing” was, as of the date of the hearing, $316,925.99. This appeal followed. 2 DISCUSSION The Estate argues in one issue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Jones’s motion. “Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘essential to a court’s power to decide a case.’” City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553–54 (Tex. 2000)). Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. City of Conroe v. San Jacinto River Auth., 602 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. 2020). We also review questions of statutory construction de novo, seeking to “ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent as expressed by the language of the statute.” Id. (citing City of Houston v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566, 580 (Tex. 2018)). Rather than construe statutes in isolation, we “consider the context and framework of the entire statute” and construe it as a cohesive whole. Id. (citing Aleman v. Texas Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2019)). Chapter 157 of the Family Code provides multiple child-support enforcement mechanisms. Section 157.263 authorizes a court to confirm the amount of arrearages and render a cumulative money judgment for the amount owed. Tex. Fam. Code § 157.263. Separately, a lien arises by operation of law on an obligor’s property subject to certain requirements for perfecting the lien. Id. § 157.312(c). Section 157.323 authorizes a party to bring an action to foreclose upon a child support lien and, in the course of that action, to obtain a judicial determination of the arrearages. Id. § 157.323. Jones sought—and the district court granted— both a cumulative money judgment under Section 157.263 and a determination of arrearages under Section 157.323. The Estate argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under either statute. 3 First, the Estate argues that Section 157.005 deprived the court of jurisdiction to render a cumulative money judgment. That statute provides in relevant part that the court retains jurisdiction “to confirm the total amount of child support, medical support, and dental support arrearages and render cumulative money judgments for past-due child support, medical support, and dental support, as provided by Section 157.263” if a motion for enforcement is filed by a certain date. Id. § 157.005(b). Jones responds that this statute does not apply because she “is not seeking relief under Section 157.263.” She contends that this section has no application to other child support enforcement remedies, such as a suit for determination of arrearages covered by a child support lien under Section 157.323. Because Jones disclaims any entitlement to a cumulative money judgment under Section 157.263, we will focus on whether the court had jurisdiction under Section 157.323. The Estate contends that Jones failed to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Section 157.323 because Jones “failed to file any child support lien notices.” The Estate focuses on Subsection 157.323(a), which states the courts where “an action to foreclose a child support lien, to dispute the amount of arrearages stated in the lien, or to resolve issues of ownership interest with respect to property subject to a child support lien” may be filed. Id. § 157.323(a). 1 The Estate argues that each of these actions presuppose that a lien notice has been filed and, thus, filing one is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. We disagree. The Estate presupposes that a lien must be in writing, but: An action under this section may be brought in: “(1) the court in which the lien notice was filed under Section 157.314(b)(1); (2) the district court of the county in which the property is or was located and the lien was filed; (3) or the court of continuing jurisdiction.” Tex. Fam. Code § 157.323(a). 1 4 A child support lien arises by operation of law against real and personal property of an obligor for all amounts of child support due and owing, including any accrued interest, regardless of whether the amounts have been adjudicated or otherwise determined, subject to the requirements of this subchapter for perfection of the lien. Id. § 157.312(c). A child support lien “is perfected when an abstract of judgment for past due child support or a child support lien notice is filed or delivered as provided by Section 157.314.” Id. § 157.316(a). Section 157.323 provides a means of obtaining that judgment: “[i]f arrearages are owed by the obligor, the court shall . . . render judgment against the obligor for the amount due, plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Id. § 157.323(c)(1). The obligee may then perfect the lien by filing or delivering an abstract of judgment as provided by Section 157.314. See id. § 157.316(a). Adopting the Estate’s construction of Section 157.323 would mean that an abstract of judgment does not perfect a lien if the judgment was obtained in action under Section 157.323. Section 157.316 does not contain that limitation, and it is not our role to “engraft upon the statute any conditions or provisions not placed there by the legislature.” In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (citing Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 80–81 (Tex. 2011)). Construed as a whole and in context of Chapter 157, Section 157.323 authorizes an action to foreclose on a lien that is already filed (such as to resolve an ownership interest in property subject to the lien) and one that arose by operation of law but has not been reduced to writing. See Tex. Fam. Code § 157.323. If the lien has not been reduced to writing, a party may obtain a judicial determination of arrearages. See id. Jones requested a judicial determination of arrearages “for the purpose of . . . perfecting the child support lien that arose by operation of 5 law” on Shortes’s property. She was therefore not required to have filed a notice of child support lien to vest the district court with jurisdiction. We overrule the Estate’s sole issue. __________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith Affirmed Filed: December 21, 2022 6

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.