www.setexasrecord.com
Jul. 3, 2009 | S.E. Texas' Legal Journal
 
NEWS

Appeals court rules attorney fees not protected as debt, agrees Montgomery County man should serve jail time

5/7/2008 10:21 AM

Although the Texas Constitution forbids imprisonment for debt, a Texan who refused to pay an attorney's fee will spend 30 days in jail.

The 9th District appeals court on May 1 denied a writ of habeas corpus to Jonathan Skero, who disobeyed a family violence protective order that included $1,750 for attorney William Adair.

The appellate judges wrote that "attorney's fees are a means of enforcing a legal duty in which the public has an interest, and the fees are not viewed as mere debts or money judgments."

They upheld Montgomery County District Judge Kathleen Hamilton, who held Skero in contempt of a protective order.

In addition to refusing to pay Adair, Skero failed to submit an affidavit swearing he started counseling for anger management.

On appeal his attorney, Celia Brown, argued that Adair's fee was a debt that Hamilton could not enforce through a contempt order.

At first, 9th District judges agreed. In April, they granted Skero temporary relief.

After a closer look, Chief Justice Steve McKeithen and Justices David Gaultney and Hollis Horton disagreed.

"An obligation that is a legal duty arising out of the status of the parties, as opposed to a debt, may be enforced through the court's contempt powers," they wrote.

"Attorney's fees related to child support contempt actions are considered costs, not a debt," they wrote.

Except for good cause, they wrote, a family violence protective order must include all fees, charges or expenses incurred in connection with the order.

"A family violence protective order, including the assessment of attorney's fees, enforces a legal duty, not a private agreement or contract between the parties," they wrote.

Adair represented Christie Burks Grissom, as real party in interest.



EMAIL A FRIEND | PRINT | DIGG THIS | POST TO DEL.ICIO.US




COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE

blog comments powered by Disqus
SUBSCRIBE To get our free email newsletter and make changes to your subscription:
 
 Subscribe to Print Edition
 Renew Print Edition Subscription
Shopping for success - 6/27/2009
Legally Speaking: A Poor Excuse for a Column - 6/24/2009

ARGUMENTS Archive

Should Huntsman have settled or continued the trial against the bankers that backed out of the Hexion deal?
Settlement was right
 
(52%)
Continued trial
 
(48%)
Total Votes:21

Thank you for voting in this poll.

This poll is closed.

View Results
Attention bloggers:
Add Record Headlines to your site!


fast + free- click here
Need to know more about us or have questions? Try the links below:
By way of introduction
About Us
Contact The Record