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.

In re S.V.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

July 9, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF S.V. AND S.V., CHILDREN

          On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968-V

          Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DAVID L. BRIDGES, JUSTICE

         Venky Venkatraman (Father), a pro se party, appeals the trial court's December 15, 2017 order on motion for judgment nunc pro nunc and order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship nunc pro tunc. We affirm.

         Background

         Father and Mother divorced in 2004 and have two children, Anna and Zoe.[1] Father has repeatedly been before this Court appealing various orders and seeking mandamus relief regarding this high-conflict custody case.[2] The procedural background and underlying facts are well-known to the parties; therefore, we include only those facts necessary for disposition of the issues raised by Father in this particular appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

         On May 4, 2016, the trial court signed an order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship nunc pro tunc. The order contained the following child support provision:

IT IS ORDERED that Venky Venkatraman is obligated to pay and shall pay to [Mother] child support of one thousand one hundred eighteen dollars and seventy-two cents ($1118.72) per month, with the first payment being due and payable on December 1, 2015 and a like payment being due and payable on the first day of each month thereafter until the first month following of the earliest occurrence of one of the events specified below:
1. Any child reaches the age of eighteen years or graduates from high school, whichever occurs later, subject to the provisions for support beyond the age of eighteen years set out below . . .

         On November 13, 2017, Mother filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to reform judgment because the May 4, 2016 order nunc pro tunc failed to include the correct child support language, referred to as a "step down" provision. As written, the May 4, 2016 order allowed Father to stop paying any child support once Anna reached eighteen, but did not require any further payment for Zoe. Mother's subsequent motion for judgment nunc pro tunc sought to include the following language related to child support:

Thereafter, Venky Venkatraman is ORDERED to pay [Mother] child support of eight-hundred and ninety-five dollars and zero cents ($895.00) per month, due and payable on the 1st day of the first month immediately following the date of the earliest occurrence of one of the events specified above for another child and a like sum of eight-hundred and ninety-five dollars and zero cents ($895.00) due and payable on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the next occurrence of one of the events specified above for the other child.

         Importantly, the original March 4, 2016 SAPCR included the above-language, but was left out in the May 4, 2016 order.

         Father filed objections to Mother's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to reform judgment. On December 15, 2017, the trial court granted Mother's motion and signed the order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship nunc pro tunc, which included Mother's proposed language. On December 28, 2017, Father requested findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297. The trial court did not issue any findings or conclusions. This appeal followed.

         Findings of Fact and ...


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.