Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amudo v. Amudo

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

June 21, 2018

ANTHONY AMUDO, Appellant
v.
CHRISTIANA AMUDO, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2009-58679

          Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHERRY RADACK CHIEF JUSTICE

         Appellant, Anthony Amudo, challenges the trial court's order denying his motion to modify child support. In six issues, Anthony contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence as a discovery sanction, not granting a continuance, and not filing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         We affirm.

         Background

         In 2011, the trial court signed a final decree, granting Anthony and his wife, Christiana Amudo, a divorce and awarding Christiana primary conservatorship of their three children. In the decree, the trial court ordered that Anthony pay monthly child support of $2, 250.00 and that he provide the children with health insurance.

         On December 31, 2015, Anthony filed a "Petition to Modify [the] Parent-Child Relationship, " requesting that the trial court decrease his monthly child-support and health-insurance obligations because his circumstances had materially and substantially changed since the date of the decree. Christiana filed an answer, generally denying the allegations.

         In March 2016, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas ("OAG") intervened in the suit and served Anthony with a request for production of several documents, including his federal tax returns for the preceding two years, documentation of income, accounts, and available health insurance.

         In June 2016, Anthony sent discovery requests to Christiana, who was pro se. When the parties appeared for trial on August 16, 2016, however, Christiana's newly retained counsel requested a continuance. The trial court granted a continuance, reset trial for October 10, 2016, ordered that Anthony send to Christiana's new counsel a copy of his outstanding discovery requests, and that Christiana respond within 30 days.

         On August 30, 2016, Christiana filed a certificate of written discovery, stating that she had served Anthony with a set of interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for disclosure.

         On or about September 29, 2016, Anthony responded to each of Christiana's discovery requests with an objection that the request was untimely because it had been served on him too close to the October 10, 2016 trial.

         On October 10, 2016, trial was reset to January 24, 2017. Trial was later held on March 24, 2017.

         At the beginning of trial, Christiana moved for a directed verdict and asked the trial court to dismiss the case, asserting that, although Anthony had, on September 29, 2016, served her with a response to her discovery requests, his "only answer" to all of her questions and requests was a "blanket objection" as follows: "Objection is made to this interrogatory because it was served on Petitioner less than 30 days before the end of the discovery period, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.1." Christiana complained that, after the October 10, 2016 trial was reset:

[Anthony] never amended [his] responses except to send a-on the 14th of February [2017] . . . what purports to be a 2016 tax return. [He] did not respond to any of the bank statements. This is a gentleman who claims to be self-employed. No bank statements were provided. Those were specifically requested. None of the information about accounts, none of the information about who he works for, absolutely nothing. And I do have a copy of . . . [his] original responses as well as [his] supplemental responses if the Court needs to see those.[1]
Additionally, the local rules require that ten days prior to any trial involving child support, a party must file and serve upon the other side a financial information statement, which would contain the last two years' tax returns as well as the most ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.