Stone v. Stone

7 Citing cases

  1. In re K.E.A.

    359 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App. 2012)

    Id. This Court has held that a divorce decree that leaves blank the amount of child support is interlocutory and unappealable. See Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1975, no writ). The pertinent provisions of the trial court's order state:

  2. Wheeler v. Green

    119 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    In Stone v. Stone, this Court held that a judgment leaving blank the amount of child support to be paid was not a final judgment subject to appeal. See Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1975, no writ). We noted, however, that the trial court left the amount blank based on a stipulation that the parties would present evidence relating to the amount of support needed at a later date.

  3. Brown v. Brown

    917 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    Divorce decrees which reserve issues of child support are not accorded the presumption of finality. Zellers v. Barthel, 727 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1987, no writ); Campbell v. Campbell, 550 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1977, no writ); Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1975, no writ). See also Kelley v. Kelley, 583 S.W.2d 671, 673-74 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1979, writ dism'd) (wherein the court reversed without deciding the public policy argument that custody may not be severed from the divorce action).

  4. Azbill v. Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Texas Department of Human & Regulatory Services

    860 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App. 1993)   Cited 43 times
    Holding first judgment not vacated where record showed that trial court intended for first judgment to remain in effect

    We questioned whether the termination judgment and divorce decree were interlocutory because the trial court did not dispose of all the issues in one document. See Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1975, no writ); Schell, 450 S.W.2d at 676-677; Thomas v. Shult, 436 S.W.2d 194, 196-97 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ). More recently, this Court has held that the dispositive orders need not appear in one document for a judgment to be final. See Radelow-Gittens, 735 S.W.2d at 560; Runnymede Corp. v. Metroplex Plaza, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1976, writ ref'd).

  5. Ault v. Mulanax

    724 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    In Ault, the trial court announced, after a hearing concerning the conservatorship of the children involved, that the husband would be the managing conservator.

    Kelley v. Kelley, 583 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1979, writ dism'd), 2 L. Simpkins, Texas Family Law § 13:26 (Speer's 5th ed. 1981). A decree dissolving a marriage, appointing a conservator of children, fixing visitation rights, and disposing of community property, but not fixing child support, has been held to be not final. Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1975, no writ). If a judgment expressly reserves the issue of child support or property division for future determination by the court, the judgment is interlocutory in nature. Campbell v. Campbell, 550 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1977, no writ).

  6. Garrison v. Texas Commerce Bank

    560 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 30 times

    The judgment of divorce rendered by the Court of Domestic Relations was interlocutory. Angerstein v. Angerstein, 389 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1965, no writ); Campbell v. Campbell, 550 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1977, no writ history); Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1975, no writ history); Hottell v. Hottell, 454 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1970, no writ history). The death of Mrs. Candace Mossler Garrison prior to the division of the community property of the parties rendered the cause moot and no final judgment of divorce could thereafter be rendered.

  7. Campbell v. Campbell

    550 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 16 times

    McAfee v. McAfee, 152 Tex. 156, 255 S.W.2d 185 (1953). Even so, if the judgment expressly reserves the issues of child support or property division for future determination by the court, the judgment is interlocutory. Stone v. Stone, 531 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App. 1975, no writ); Angerstein v. Angerstein, 389 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App. 1965, no writ). The presumption of finality, announced in North East Independent School District is not applicable to the case at bar because the judgment, on its face, shows that the court reserved issues for determination at a later time. For example, the court ordered no support payments but instead reserved that determination until such time as William Bruner Campbell ". . . brings himself personally before this Court."