In the Interest of M.A.B. and M.A.L., Children--Appeal from 37th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00755-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.B. AND M.A.L.

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 85-CI-11669

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 22, 2006

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Guadalupe Benavides, appeals an order confirming child support arrearage. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Guadalupe Benavides was divorced from his wife in 1987 and ordered to pay $300 per month in child support. After Benavides moved from Texas to Colorado, the State of Texas confirmed a child support arrearage owed by Benavides in the amount of $24,553.85 and registered the support order in Colorado. According to Benavides, Colorado filed a "Notice of Registration of the Foreign Support Order" and accepted a lump sum payment of $10,000. Benavides alleges Colorado issued a "Satisfaction of Judgment," constituting a full and final payment on the entire $24,553.85 arrearage. Later, the Texas Attorney General (AG) filed suit against Benavides to collect the remaining arrearage. The AG did not dispute Benavides paid the $10,000, but instead argued the payment did not satisfy the entire arrearage. An associate judge entered a judgment against Benavides for $14,479.73. Benavides appealed the associate judge's ruling and alleged the confirmation of the arrearage was barred by "the doctrine of accord and satisfaction," "the doctrine of res judicata," and violated his constitutional rights. After conducting a de novo hearing, the presiding judge affirmed the associate judge's ruling. In two issues on appeal, Benavides complains of the presiding judge's confirmation of the $14,479.73 child support arrearage. Benavides argues the trial court erred by not giving the "Satisfaction of Judgment" full faith and credit and "its properly entitled res judicata effect."

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND RES JUDICATA

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires full faith and credit to be given to a judicial proceeding of another state. U.S. Const. art. IV, 1; see Bard v. Charles R. Meyers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1992). Full faith and credit requires "[a] properly proven foreign judgment . . . be recognized and given effect coextensive with that to which it is entitled in the rendering state." Bard, 839 S.W.2d at 794. In addition, a state is required to give another state's judgment the same res judicata effect it would receive in the rendering state. Villanueva v. Off. of the Attorney Gen., 935 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 109 (1963)). However, res judicata requires proof of a "prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction." Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996).

On appeal, Benavides asserts the Colorado court issued a "Satisfaction of Judgment" on the entire arrearage. However, the AG argues no such judgment was ever entered in Colorado and no such judgment was presented to the trial court. Because the exhibits admitted at trial are not part of the appellate record, we are unable to determine if Benavides presented a Colorado judgment to the trial court. Thus, nothing in the record supports Benavides's argument that a Colorado court issued a "Satisfaction of Judgment," to which a Texas court would be required to give full faith and credit or to which res judicata could attach.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we overrule Benavides's issues on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice