Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County,
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa
V. RODRIGUEZ Justice
Alfredo Aranda Aguirre contests the trial court's entry
of a child-support enforcement order in favor of appellee
Virginia Aguirre. By one issue, Alfredo argues that the trial
court abused its discretion by not also including an award of
interest against him and in favor of Virginia. We affirm.
facts of this case are largely undisputed. In 2005, Virginia
petitioned for and was granted a divorce from Alfredo. The
divorce decree awarded Virginia and Alfredo equal interests
in a home in Brownsville, Texas. Virginia was granted sole
conservatorship of their three children and the right to
receive child support.
2009, Alfredo shot Virginia. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
Alfredo pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a
sentence of fifteen years. Alfredo's child-support
obligations fell into arrears during his confinement.
2015, Virginia moved to enforce the child-support
obligations. Acting pro se, Alfredo responded and appeared at
a hearing via teleconference. At the hearing, Virginia
testified that Alfredo's child-support arrearages totaled
$27, 445.78. Virginia also argued that Alfredo owed her
contribution for taxes on the home which she and Alfredo
owned. Virginia testified that since the divorce, she alone
had paid $9, 187.70 of taxes on the home. She asserted that
Alfredo owed her a contribution of $4, 593.85.
further testified that the home had a market value of $47,
611, and Alfredo's one-half interest in the home was
worth $23, 805.50. As relief, Virginia prayed for the trial
court to award her sole ownership of the home and to offset
the total amount which Alfredo allegedly owed in taxes and
child support-$32, 039.63-by the value of Alfredo's
interest in the home. As to the remaining balance after any
offset, Virginia prayed that the trial court award her a
deficiency judgment of $8, 234.13.
testified that he had not paid any taxes on the home, and he
agreed that Virginia was entitled to the amount of tax
contribution she requested. He further agreed that Virginia
had solely been responsible for supporting the children since
his incarceration and that as part of the arrearages, he had
an outstanding judgment of $8, 291.78 against him.
testified that he had no opinion as to the value of the
Brownsville home. While he at first testified that it was his
desire that the home be sold, he then testified that he and
Virginia "had already committed to leave that house for
our children and grandchildren like a safe haven for them.
And if it doesn't happen that way, well, then I ask the
court that the house and property be sold." Alfredo
asked that the proceeds of any sale go to Virginia, and he
prayed that the trial court give him "time to get out
and pay the support and the arrearage."
the hearing, the trial court entered an "enforcement
order" concerning both child support and property taxes.
The order purported to transfer the home to Virginia as her
sole property and provided that the order itself would serve
as muniment of title. The order also commanded Alfredo to
execute all documents necessary to effectuate a transfer of
his interest to Virginia, including a general warranty deed.
The trial court found that the amount of Alfredo's debt
to Virginia was $32, 039.63 and ordered that this debt be
offset by the fair market value of Alfredo's interest in
the home, which was $23, 805.50. Finally, the order set out
that the "resulting balance of $8, 234.13" was
"still due and owing" to Virginia by Alfredo.
Alfredo appeals from the enforcement order.
appeal, Alfredo does not challenge any of the above. Instead,
by his sole issue, Alfredo seeks a new trial on the ground
that the trial court wrongfully failed to award Virginia
statutory 6% interest on his arrearage, which would increase
the deficiency judgment against him. See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 157.265 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).
Alfredo cites the rule that "[a]warding interest on
child support arrearages is mandatory and the trial court has
no discretion to not award the full amount of interest
due." In re A.C.B., 302 S.W.3d 560, 566 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo 2009, no pet.).
generally, an appellate court cannot reverse the trial court
based on a complaint not raised in the trial court. Banda
v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam).
To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must have presented
it to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or
motion specifically stating the grounds for the desired
ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Because
Alfredo did not raise this issue before the trial court in
any form, the issue is not preserved for our review, and we
need not address it. See id.; In re A.A.F.,
120 S.W.3d 517, 519 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (finding
that a similar argument concerning statutory interest on