Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2015-CI-12374 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez,
Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice.
Elena D. Chapa, Justice.
Alan Markgraf was ordered to pay Susan Lori Wiedenfeld
spousal maintenance in their divorce decree. Wiedenfeld
appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to
continue receiving spousal maintenance. In three issues,
Wiedenfeld contends: (1) the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to find she was not disabled because she was
receiving social security disability payments; (2) the trial
court did not have the discretion to disregard her testimony
regarding her disability; and (3) the trial court erred in
requiring one of her attorneys to leave the courtroom after
Texas Rule of Evidence 614 was invoked. Markgraf asserts a
cross-point, contending the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss Wiedenfeld's petition because it was
untimely filed. We affirm the trial court's order.
and Markgraf were divorced in 2012. The divorce decree states
the divorce was judicially pronounced and rendered on January
18, 2012, but signed on September 10, 2012. In the divorce
decree, the trial court found Wiedenfeld was eligible for
spousal maintenance and ordered Markgraf to pay her $400.00
per month until the earliest of one of the following events
1. a review of the Order in three (3) years to see if [the]
Spousal Maintenance Obligation should be continued; or
2. the death of either Petitioner or Respondent; or
3. the remarriage of [Wiedenfeld]; or
4. further orders of the court affecting the spousal
30, 2015, Wiedenfeld filed a petition requesting the
continuation of her spousal maintenance. Markgraf answered
and filed a motion to dismiss, asserting Wiedenfeld's
petition was untimely filed because she was required to seek
a review by January 18, 2015, which was three years after the
date the divorce decree was rendered on January 18, 2012.
After a hearing, the trial court signed an order denying
Wiedenfeld's petition and also denying Markgraf's
motion to dismiss.
brief, Markgraf raises a cross-point asserting the trial
court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. "A party
who seeks to alter the trial court's judgment or other
appealable order must file a notice of appeal."
Tex.R.App.P. 25.1(c). In this case, the trial court's
order denied Markgraf's motion; therefore, Markgraf's
cross-point seeks to alter the trial court's order.
Because Markgraf did not file a notice of appeal, however, he
waived this complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(c);
Lubbock Cty. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80
S.W.3d 580, 584 (Tex. 2002); Soefje v. Jones, 270
S.W.3d 617, 631 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.).
of Davidson under Rule 614
third issue, Wiedenfeld asserts the trial court erred in
excluding Bill Davidson from the courtroom as a potential
witness absent a showing that he was disqualified to
represent her as one of her attorneys. With regard to
Davidson's exclusion from the courtroom, the record
reflects the following:
THE COURT: You're free to share anything you'd like
with them, but is it correct that your client is cohabitating
with another person?
MR. RICKERSON [Wiedenfeld's attorney]: No, Your Honor.
No, Your Honor. That is absolutely not true. And, in fact,
she's here to testify to it. I even have Mr. Davidson
here to testify to it. They are not cohabitating, they are
not. They don't know each other. They don't have -
I'm sorry, not these two, but I don't think he - some
of the things that he said calls for personal knowledge, and
I don't think he ...