Attorney Fees
Texas Man Gets 30 Days for Not Paying Legal Bill
Posted May 7, 2008, 01:07 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Individuals can't constitutionally be imprisoned in Texas for failing to pay 
a debt. But because a legal fee represents more than mere money, a state 
appeals court has upheld a judge's contempt ruling sentencing a man who 
didn't pay a $1,750 attorney fee as required by a family violence protective 
order to 30 days in jail.

Jonathan Skero also failed to comply with the order's requirement that he 
attend anger management counseling, reports the Southeast Texas Record.

"Attorney's fees are a means of enforcing a legal duty in which the public 
has an interest, and the fees are not viewed as mere debts or money 
judgments," explains the 9th District appellate panel in its written 
opinion.



*you'll notice how all the shysters stick together and that this case 
involves alleged "domestic violence"

Avenger wrote:

> Attorney Fees
> Texas Man Gets 30 Days for Not Paying Legal Bill
> Posted May 7, 2008, 01:07 pm CDT
> By Martha Neil
> 
> Individuals can't constitutionally be imprisoned in Texas for failing to
> pay a debt. But because a legal fee represents more than mere money, a
> state appeals court has upheld a judge's contempt ruling sentencing a man
> who didn't pay a $1,750 attorney fee as required by a family violence
> protective order to 30 days in jail.
> 
> Jonathan Skero also failed to comply with the order's requirement that he
> attend anger management counseling, reports the Southeast Texas Record.
> 
> "Attorney's fees are a means of enforcing a legal duty in which the public
> has an interest, and the fees are not viewed as mere debts or money
> judgments," explains the 9th District appellate panel in its written
> opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> *you'll notice how all the shysters stick together and that this case
> involves alleged "domestic violence"

Come here to Australia.

In Australia, a man can't be imprisoned for not paying Court-ordered
maintenance.  But if he has the means and ability to pay, and blatantly
refuses, that can amount to contempt of court, for which he can be
imprisoned.  A ruling of contempt is made only in clear cases.  A woman who
is ordered to support her husband is treated identically.  A far cry from
the bad old days, when a husband was jailed whether he could pay or not.

But since the introduction of Child Support, such cases are extremely rare
nowadays.  Spousal maintenance is pretty well a dead letter.  When her
youngest child turns 12, a wife goes off (Social Security) supporting
parent benefit and onto the dole.  She is expected to look for a job.  A
positive from Women's Lib equality (and a retreat from the original 1981
position that a wife could choose to stay home at her husband's expense.)

The fairness of the law will always be a matter of opinion.  But an orderly
society depends upon everybody obeying the law, even reluctantly, even if
it is unfair.

I don't think that attorney's fees here are regarded as anything more than a
debt due to the attorney.  Attorneys are no longer "officers of the court"
so far as privileges go, but they are still subject to the same duties to
the Court. A party refusing to obey a Court order to pay costs could be in
contempt in the same circumstances as above.  Costs are not awarded in
matrimonial cases, or in domestic violence cases, but are awarded in
appeals, and in contempt cases.  One practitioner who got his clients to
sign exorbitant costs agreements regularly had them struck out by the
Family Court (I think that I saw 3 cases of his - certainly two.)  He
finished up having to take less than the reasonable ones.

If contempt proceedings were taken against the husband for failing to attend
Court-ordered anger management, that would automatically trigger the
Court's conciliation procedures, to try to defuse it.  Courses in anger
management are often awarded in Police Court cases for assault or wilful
damage, as a better solution than a jail term.

Doug L. (Out of the game for 10 years this month.)