IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-03-00202-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF n.l.a.
From the 82nd District Court
Robertson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11,993
ORDER
The Attorney General appeals an order granting Appellee Ernest Smith’s motion to set aside an order reducing unpaid child support to judgment.
On April 6, 1981, the judge of the 20th District Court, which had jurisdiction in Robertson and Milam Counties, signed a Decree of Legitimation which declared that Ernest Smith is the father of N.L.A. and ordered him to pay child support. In 1983, the 20th and 82nd judicial districts were reorganized so that the 20th District became composed solely of Milam County, and Robertson became part of the 82nd District with Falls County.[1] On October 21, 1985, the judge of the 82nd District Court, which then had jurisdiction in Robertson and Falls Counties, signed a “Dismissal Judgment” that dismissed the cause for want of prosecution. On February 8, 2000, the judge of the 20th District Court, which then had jurisdiction only in Milam County, signed an Order Reducing Unpaid Child Support to Judgment. In May 2001, Smith filed in the 82nd District Court a motion to set aside the 2000 unpaid child support judgment. After a hearing, the judge of that court signed an order granting the motion.
The Attorney General argues that the 82nd District Court lacked jurisdiction either to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution in 1985 or to set aside the 2000 arrearage judgment. The Attorney General contends that the 20th District Court is the court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over this case because it issued the legitimation decree and ordered child support in 1981.
A jurisdictional ruling in this case runs the risk of invalidating judgments and orders in other cases. If we were to rule that all cases on the docket in Robertson County on September 1, 1983, in which there was continuing jurisdiction stayed with the 20th District Court, we run the risk of invalidating judgments or orders in family law cases signed thereafter by the 82nd. On the other hand, a ruling that the 82nd acquired jurisdiction based on territorial jurisdiction alone could effectively invalidate judgments and orders signed thereafter by the 20th.
The submission is set aside. We request additional briefing from the Attorney General on the issue of the effects of the respective jurisdictional holdings on cases pending in the 20th and 82nd District Courts on September 1, 1983. The Attorney General’s supplemental brief is due forty-five days after the date of this Order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Order issued and filed June 8, 2005
Do not publish
[1] 20th and 82nd Judicial Districts—Reorganization, 68th Leg., R.S. ch 468, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 2743.