Sec. 8.059. ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDER. (a) The court may enforce by contempt against the obligor:
(1) the court's maintenance order; or
(2) an agreement for periodic payments of spousal maintenance under the terms of this chapter voluntarily entered into between the parties and approved by the court.
(a-1) The court may not enforce by contempt any provision of an agreed order for maintenance that exceeds the amount of periodic support the court could have ordered under this chapter or for any period of maintenance beyond the period of maintenance the court could have ordered under this chapter.
(b) On the suit to enforce by an obligee, the court may render judgment against a defaulting party for the amount of arrearages after notice by service of citation, answer, if any, and a hearing finding that the defaulting party has failed or refused to comply with the terms of the order. The judgment may be enforced by any means available for the enforcement of judgment for debts, including by an order or writ of withholding and a maintenance qualified domestic relations order under Subchapter H.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of contempt of court or the violation of a condition of probation requiring payment of court-ordered maintenance that the obligor:
(1) lacked the ability to provide maintenance in the amount ordered;
(2) lacked property that could be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise pledged to raise the funds needed;
(3) attempted unsuccessfully to borrow the needed funds; and
(4) did not know of a source from which the money could have been borrowed or otherwise legally obtained.
(d) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense does not arise until pleaded. An obligor must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
(e) Repealed by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 486, Sec. 9(3), eff. September 1, 2011.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. Renumbered from Sec. 8.009 and amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 807, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 486 (H.B. 901), Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 486 (H.B. 901), Sec. 9(3), eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 242 (H.B. 389), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 64 (H.B. 867), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2007) (discussing TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059(a) ). In Green , we held that a maintenance obligation is punishable by contempt "only if it meets Chapter Eight's other requirements.”
In Re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2004).
· cites it 2× “TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059. 18 . 719 S.W.2d 239 (Tex.”
Renee Sheree O'Carolan v. Gary D. Hopper, 414 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Laws 1574, 1577-78 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059). The amendments made in 2001 “appl[y] to spousal maintenance payments regardless of whether the payments become due before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.”
In Re Sheshtawy, 161 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2003).
“001(d) (motion for enforcement under Title 5 shall be filed in court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction); Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059 (trial court may enforce spousal maintenance by contempt, garnishment, or other means); Tex.”
In Re Dupree, 118 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App. 2003).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059(a) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re Taylor, 130 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App. 2004).
“Second, Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059 (Vernon Supp.2004) specifically states that a court may enforce by contempt the court’s maintenance order or an agreement for the payment of maintenance.”
In Re Lozano, 263 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App. 2006).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059 (Vernon 2006).”
Renee Sheree O'Carolan v. Gary D. Hopper (Tex. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Laws 1574 , 1577-78 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.059 ). The amendments made in 2001 “appl[y] to spousal maintenance payments regardless of whether the payments become due before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.”
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton (Tex. 2018).
“” TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059(b). But Carol cannot avail herself of Chapter 8’s remedies because she does not have a court order for Chapter 8 spousal maintenance.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 8.059(a) — 4 cases
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018).
“2007) (discussing TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059(a) ). In Green , we held that a maintenance obligation is punishable by contempt "only if it meets Chapter Eight's other requirements.”
In Re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2004).
“TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059. 18 . 719 S.W.2d 239 (Tex.”
Renee Sheree O'Carolan v. Gary D. Hopper, 414 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App. 2013).
“Laws 1574, 1577-78 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059). The amendments made in 2001 “appl[y] to spousal maintenance payments regardless of whether the payments become due before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.”
In Re Dupree, 118 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App. 2003).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.059(a) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 8.059(a)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 8.059(b) — 2 cases
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018).
“2007) (discussing TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059(a) ). In Green , we held that a maintenance obligation is punishable by contempt "only if it meets Chapter Eight's other requirements.”
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton (Tex. 2018).
“” TEX. FAM. CODE § 8.059(b). But Carol cannot avail herself of Chapter 8’s remedies because she does not have a court order for Chapter 8 spousal maintenance.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 8.059(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.