faith and credit clause in Texas

2003Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1975); Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ). 3 .

2003Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex. 1975); Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex. App.CAustin 1995, no writ). 8 The propriety of a summary judgment is an issue of law for the district court subject to de novo review.

2004However, the OAG directs us to Gard v. Gard, in which the Supreme Court of Texas stated, [Generally speaking, where a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future instalments, the right to such instalments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the instalments. 150 Tex. 347 , 241 S.W.2d 618, 619 (1951) (citing Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1,16-17 , 30 S.Ct. 682, 686 , 54 L.Ed. 905 (1910)).

2004However, the OAG directs us to Gard v. Gard, in which the Supreme Court of Texas stated, [Generally speaking, where a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future instalments, the right to such instalments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the instalments. 150 Tex. 347 , 241 S.W.2d 618, 619 (1951) (citing Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1,16-17 , 30 S.Ct. 682, 686 , 54 L.Ed. 905 (1910)).

2003Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1975); Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ). 3 .

2003Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex. 1975); Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex. App.CAustin 1995, no writ). 8 The propriety of a summary judgment is an issue of law for the district court subject to de novo review.

2018Although the “duty to give effect to [the order] clearly results from the full faith and credit clause, the modes of procedure to enforce the collection may not be the same in both states.” Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 26 (1910).16 16 See also Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574, 576 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Illinois’s recognition of the New York order does not carry with it an obligation that Illinois enforce that order in the manner which [New York] apparently prescribes.”); City of Philadelphia v. Bauer, 478 A.2d 773, 778 (N.J. 1984) (“Although judgments of sister states must be given full faith and

2018Although the "duty to give effect to [the order] clearly results from the full faith and credit clause, the modes of procedure to enforce the collection may not be the same in both states." Sistare v. Sistare , 218 U.S. 1 , 26, 30 S.Ct. 682 , 54 L.Ed. 905 (1910). 16 Although Oklahoma has chosen to allow wage withholding to enforce all agreed spousal-support orders, the full-faith-and-credit clause does not require Texas to honor that choice.

1965The opinion in Criteser v. Gaffey, supra, set out the general rule and exception in that case as follows: "`First, that, generally speaking, where a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future installments, the right to such installments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the installments, since, as declared in the Barber Case [ 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 ], "alimony decreed to a wife in a divorce of separation from bed and b

1965The opinion in Criteser v. Gaffey, supra, set out the general rule and exception in that case as follows: “ ‘First, that, generally speaking, where a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future installments, the right to such installments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the installments, since, as declared in the Barber Case [ 21 How. 582 , 16 L.Ed. 226 ], “alimony decreed to a wife in a divorce of separation from bed and

2005See Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126, 128 , 72 S.Ct. 157, 159 , 96 L.Ed. 146 (1951); Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 62 , 58 S.Ct. 454, 456 , 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938); A & S Distrib.

2005See Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126, 128 , 72 S.Ct. 157, 159 , 96 L.Ed. 146 (1951); Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 62 , 58 S.Ct. 454, 456 , 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938); A & S Distrib.

2012See Mindis Metals, Inc. v. Oilfield Motor & Control, Inc. , 132 S.W.3d 477 , 485–86 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (applying abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to established facts in concluding that appellee established an exception to the full faith and credit requirement with regard to its decision to vacate a properly filed foreign judgment); see also Serv.

2012See Mindis Metals, Inc. v. Oilfield Motor & Control, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 477 , 485–86 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (applying abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to established facts in concluding that appellee established an exception to the full faith and credit requirement with regard to its decision to vacate a properly filed foreign judgment); see also Serv.

2015This situation “goes to the very heart of the concept of comity.” Keene Corp., 840 S.W.2d at 720 . “[O]n the principle of comity and the full faith and credit clause,” it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to issue an order in conflict with that of a federal court order regarding the same subject matter.

2007Keene Corp . v. Caldwell , 840 S.W.2d 715, 720 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet).

2015See id.

2014See id.

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra , 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp. , 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is 4 reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra , 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp. , 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is 4 reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra , 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp. , 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R. , 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2012Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 235 (Tex. 2011) (stating that a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is 4 reviewed for an abuse of discretion); In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, subject to a clear showing by the clause’s opponent of one of four exceptions); In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion.”).

2011Water Dist. v. City of San Antonio, 228 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Tex.App.Austin 2007, no pet.); see Nat’l R.R.

2011Water Dist. v. City of San Antonio, 228 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); see Nat’l R.R.

1987Donald v. Jones, 445 F.2d 601, 606 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 992 , 92 S.Ct. 537 , 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).

1983Donald v. Jones, 445 F.2d 601, 606 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 992 , 92 S.Ct. 537 , 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).

2026“The full faith and credit clause requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states.” Bard, 839 S.W.2d at 794.

2015“The full faith and credit clause requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states.” Id.

2016Accident Comm’n of California, 294 U.S. 532, 547 , 55 S. Ct. 518, 523 (1935).

2016Accident Comm’n of California, 294 U.S. 532, 547 , 55 S. Ct. 518, 523 (1935).

1981See Carr v. Carr, 279 S.W.2d 146, 149 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1954, no writ), and Baumgardner v. Southern Pac.

1959Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 , 65 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed. 1577 , 157 A.L.R. 1366 ; Carr v. Carr, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 146 ; Keen v. Keen, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 588, 590 ; Richmond v. Sangster, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W. 723 , writ. ref.

1965See Criteser v. Gaffey, supra [Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 193 , aff’d., Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W. 1166 ]; and the burden falls on the plaintiff to establish by pleading and proof that under the law of the foreign state such judgment so rendered therein is a final judgment.

1948Criteser v. Gaffey, Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 193 , affirming Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W. 1166 .