Moreno v. Rodriguez

ADRIANA MORENO F/K/A ADRIANA MORENO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. VICTORIANO C. RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.

NUMBER 13-16-00636-CV

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

February 1, 2018

On appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellee Victoriano Rodriguez filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Property Division by Contempt," seeking complete transfer of a certificate of deposit (CD) from appellant Adriana Moreno to Rodriguez as set out in the divorce decree. Additionally, Rodriguez filed a "Motion to Clarify Pursuant to Family Code Sec. 9.008." Rodriguez obtained a Clarification Order (Order) of his and Moreno's divorce decree, and Moreno was ordered to "appear, cooperate and execute or produce all documents necessary, to fully transfer the Certificate of Deposit...." By five issues Moreno appeals the order instructing her to transfer the CD. Moreno argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying her limitations defense; (3) the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to render the order; (4) the order alters and changes the property division in the divorce decree; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in denying her attorney's fees. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In December of 2008, the trial court held a hearing to effectuate the divorce of Rodriguez and Moreno. The divorce was orally pronounced and rendered at the hearing, and the trial court signed the final decree on March 30, 2009. Among other things, the decree ordered that a CD held by Moreno for the benefit of their then minor daughter, Victoria C. Rodriguez, in the amount of $4,666.00 be placed under the sole and exclusive control of Victoriano Rodriguez. The decree did not specify as to how or when this was to occur. Moreno subsequently physically turned over the CD to Rodriguez.

On or about September 23, 2016, Rodriguez filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Property Division by Contempt." The petition essentially alleged that Moreno had failed to deliver the CD and requested that she be ordered to do so. Moreno answered, alleging that Rodriguez's petition was barred under the statute of limitations contained in the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). She further stated that there was no basis in fact or law for Rodriguez's action.Moreno also filed a counter-claim seeking monetary sanctions for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.

A hearing was held on October 27, 2016, in which Moreno clarified she turned over the CD to Rodriguez. However, Rodriguez alleged he was unable to receive the benefits of the CD for their daughter without Moreno's cooperation at the bank. During the hearing, the parties discussed the CD which is the basis of the petition and a second certificate of deposit also mentioned in the decree. The hearing was continued to allow Moreno to gather documentation to support her statements regarding the status of the certificates and any money withdrawn.

On October 28, 2016, prior to the next hearing, Rodriguez filed a "Motion to Clarify Pursuant to Family Code Sec. 9.008," seeking an order that would clarify a deadline by which Moreno must have complied with the divorce decree by delivering and/or executing any necessary documentation to effectuate the transfer of the account Rodriguez's name. See id. § 9.008 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (allowing a party to request a clarifying order setting forth specific terms to enforce compliance with an original division of property in a divorce decree). On November 10, 2016, following hearings on the motion to clarify and Rodriguez's original petition, the trial court found the provision sought to be clarified lacked the substance to provide both parties with notice of deadlines, time, date, and manner in which the transfer of property to Rodriguez should be made and the trial court judge rendered the Order of Clarification ordering appellant to "appear, cooperate and execute or produce all documents necessary, to fully transfer the Certificate of Deposit . . . to Victoria Rodriguez." This appeal followed.

II. ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

A. Evidentiary Challenges and Effect of Order on Divorce Decree

By her first issue, Moreno argues that the trial court abused its discretion by signing the Order. Moreno states that (1) there was legally or factually insufficient evidence that Rodriguez did not have the certificate of deposit or its proceeds, (2) there was legally or factually insufficient evidence that either Rodriguez or their daughter are unable to obtain the proceeds of the certificate without Moreno's assistance, and (3) the Order changed the terms of the divorce decree.

Moreno, however, provides no authorities or supporting case-law to support these arguments. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Without more, we conclude that Moreno inadequately briefed these general arguments and presents nothing for our review. See id. Moreno's first issue is overruled.

B. Limitations Defense

By her second issue, Moreno argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her limitations defense. Moreno refers to the family code and generally argues that Rodriguez's petition was barred by the statute of limitations.

Moreno provides no case law in support of this argument that might relate to the facts of this case. See id. Without more, we conclude that Moreno inadequately briefed this general argument and presents nothing for our review. See id. Moreno's second issue is overruled.

C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

By her third issue, Moreno argues that the Order is void because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Moreno argues that there was no subject matterjurisdiction because (1) the dispute was moot and (2) Rodriguez lacked standing.

1. Standard of Review

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a legal question that is reviewed de novo. See Trulock v. City of Duncanville, 277 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). Both the mootness doctrine and issues of standing implicate subject matter jurisdiction. See id.; see also Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998).

2. Applicable Law

An appellate court is prohibited from deciding a moot controversy. See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); Trulock, 277 S.W.3d at 923. This prohibition is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States Constitutions that prohibits courts from rendering advisory opinions. See Nat'l Collegiate, 1 S.W.3d at 86; Trulock, 277 S.W.3d at 923-24. The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events. Matthews, on behalf of M.M. v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016). A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982).

"In Texas, 'standing' denotes the presence of a real controversy between the parties that will actually be determined by the judicial declaration sought." Freeman v. Harleton Oil & Gas, Inc., 528 S.W.3d 708, 748 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet. filed) (reh'g overruled). When we review a trial court's order regarding standing, our analysisbegins with the plaintiff's live pleadings, and we construe the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993) (citing Huston v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 663 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). We must then consider evidence that the parties offered and relied on "to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do." Tex. Dep't of Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004) (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000)); see also In re B.A.G., No. 11-11-00354-CV, 2013 WL 364240, at *3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

3. Discussion

Moreno contends that the delivery of the physical certificate to Rodriguez satisfied her requirements under the divorce decree and thus renders his petition moot. We are not persuaded that her obligations were satisfied under the decree. The original decree orders that the certificate of deposit being held for the benefit of Victoria C. Rodriguez be placed under the sole and exclusive control of Victoriano Rodriguez. The original decree, in relevant part, states:

"IT IS ORDERED that the following custodial account now held by ADRIANA MORENO RODRIGUEZ for the parties' children, DANIELA C. RODRIGUEZ (First Community Bank - CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT - ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXXXX) VICTORIA C. RODRIGUEZ (First Community Bank - CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT - ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXXXX) is placed under the sole and exclusive control of VICTORIANO RODRIGUEZ."

Additionally, the "Property to Husband" section of the decree reiterates that as a result of the decree the following becomes property of Rodriguez: "a. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR DANIELA C. RODRIGUEZ IN THE AMOUNT OF $4666.00; and b. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR VICTORIA C. RODRIGUEZ IN THE AMOUNT OF$4666.00." Mere physical possession of the document evidencing the CD did not grant Rodriguez control of the account. We find general authority describing the relationship between certificates of deposit and the benefit of the funds helpful to our analysis:

It is important to distinguish between the right of negotiation or enforcement of the CD's themselves and beneficial ownership of the funds the CD's represent. See Kenneth McLaughlin, Jr., Joint Accounts, Totten Trusts, and the Poor Man's Will, 44 TEX. B.J. 871, 875 (1981). A CD

...