TFC 8.059 has changed to allow for a contempt action against a person who fails to pay agreed spousal maintenance in excess of what the Court could have ordered. To use an example, if spouse X agreed to pay $5000 per month in spousal maintenance, but the Family Code only allowed a Court to order $3000, then the paying spouse could only be held in contempt for failing to pay the first $3000 a month, but not the remaining $2000. These revisions should make it easier to settle cases since there will be greater assurance that the spousal maintenance will actually be paid.
TFC 8.101 has been added to allow for the withholding from earnings for agreed spousal maintenance. This provision will also make it easier to collect spousal maintenance.
* * *
TFC 82.004 has been amended to require an applicant for a protective order to state whether they are receiving services from a Title IV-D agency. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the Attorney General (which is the largest IV-D agency.) Traditionally that have not appeared at protective order hearings or intervened. This requirement will make it easier for them to identify protective order applications they may become involved in. I presume that was the rational for the amendment.
***
TFC 101.014 has been amended to allow for “digitized signatures” on pleadings and other agreements. The legal community is often several years or more behind the rest of the world in the adoption of technology. I’ve had clients want to use digitized signatures for a while and as of September 1, 2013 they will be valid. I imagine it will only be a matter of time before people contest agreements alleging their digitized signature was not authorized.
***
TFC 153.316 has been amended to define written notice in a possession and access order to include electronic mail and facsimile. My experience is the Courts I regularly practice in have long recognized e-mail notice between parents as valid when it comes to complying with notice provisions in possession orders.
***
TFC 154.062(d) has been amended to allow the Court to consider a person’s VA benefits in determing how much child support should be paid.
***
TFC 157.162(b) has been amended to allow a Court to order attorney fees to be paid by a Respondent in a child support or possession and access enforcement case even if the Respondent is not found in contempt. Frankly, this is a really odd amendment. I spoke with an Assistant AG who said there was concern that a Respondent could not be held in contempt if they paid off there past due balance before the hearing. It will be interesting to see how judges handle this. There are certainly cases where a Respondent is not in contempt because of a technicality. Will judges award attorney fees because of equitable concerns? The attorney fees are the same as child support and a Respondent can be incarcerated if they fail to pay, so this is hardly an academic concern.
