Now, was the intention for these checks to be paid for child support specifically? >> Yes, ma'am. And I recognize that it was it was for whatever the difference of 1398US 900.
And I and I I recognize those are that I do owe the difference. >> Okay. Do you know, only if you know, do you know if Miss Vu was aware that your intention was to pay the child support with these checks?
>> Yes, ma'am. As as they were written on the under the memo statement and they were accepted every month. How did you express your intention that these checks were specifically for child support?
At >> at at the time when we when I started to make the child support um those direct payments in March of 2008, we had a conversation and I said I will owe you the rears once I get back on my feet from from the failed business. And so that's what that was that's what was discussed and I I did it directly and that's what we concluded. >> Now when was this conversation had >> to be honest I don't remember the exact date but they were accepted for over seven n seven years.
I I don't recall the exact date. >> Now I'm not talking so let me clarify. I'm not talking about the acceptance of the check.
My question to you is how did you communicate to Miss Vu that these checks were for child were for child support? >> Through conversations. >> Okay.
And how did you have these conversations? What manner? >> Through a variety of manners.
Direct conversations in person. I don't think a reasonable person seeing the checks and the memos as they're stated would would think would would have any misunderstanding of what the intent of those those checks before. >> Now, Mr Vu, were you responsible for paying anything else to Miss Vu outside of child support?
>> There was a there was a uh a house for which at the time we both agreed that we would get we would do 50% upon the sale of the house, but unfortunately the house went into foreclosure. Now, the foreclosure the foreclosure um both had an opportunity to to try to um to take the house and and take it out of foreclosure, but I I had lost everything, so I could not. And she she I guess she did not either.
>> Okay. So, my question to you, Mr Vu, is did you have any other obligations besides the child support to pay to Miss Vu? >> No, ma'am.
This time I would like to offer states exhibit D which is a proposed possession credit calculator based on the time frame of March 2011 through May 2017. Um and I would like to offer that into evidence of states exhibit D as a guide to help the court. >> Do you have any objection to me admitting this as a aid to the court?
I don't agree with it, but I mean he did he he he did have our son. >> Ma'am, right now we're just talking about admissibility. >> Oh, okay.
>> Please submit it because I want to debunk it. >> Go ahead. >> This shows um the total principal amount based on the $279.
17 per month. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Now you understand that that amount did acrue interest throughout the years, >> correct? >> Okay.
And so the total maximum credit for possession um would be the $33,186. 78. You understand that?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> And you're asking the court to um award you the possession credit of this amount? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> Do you have any questions uh for Mr interview to answer in the form of question. >> Yes.
Uh he says that Nathan stayed with him until May. That is a lie. >> That's not a question.
>> This is question. This is if you have a question you want to direct towards Mr Vu for Mr Vu to answer. >> I have I have many questions.
>> Okay. This is your chance to ask them. Ma'am, >> what makes you think that you can admit that as evidence when you know the truth?
Like you can ask the counselor when why I went and reported you. You kicked our son out. Why would you why would you knowingly I object relevancy.
>> It's already been stipulated from the past the last hearing. should acknowledge that that my son stayed with me. We can go back to the record to to have that >> sir.
Um >> yes >> and state's going to object to compound um if she could just break down her question. >> I'm going to overrule Mr Boo's objection, but I'm going to grant Miss Vriel's objection because I'm not sure what you're asking. Um if you can ask one question at a time, ma'am.
>> When did Nathan When did Nathan officially move out of your place? I do not know >> why did he move out of your place. >> Yeah, ma'am.
One question at a time. >> I do not know the exact date, but it was somewhere in the middle of 2017. >> Have you spoken to the counselor?
>> Objection time frame, >> ma'am. When what do you what time frame when he speak to the counselor? Has the has the state received uh I know I sent um I sent an email unfortunately it was today from um the person that Nathan was staying with back in December because we had to find housing for him.
>> Ma'am ma'am this is not your chance to just talk and when you ask questions you often use it as a chance to get your information in and that that's not proper. Um, so if you can stick to asking factual questions, >> the the the statements that he are he's saying are false. >> This is your chance, ma'am, to ask questions.
>> I'm sorry. I'm nervous to to ask him. >> This you're going to get a chance to talk yourself later and you're going to be given a chance to be asked questions by the assistant attorney general.
This >> Okay. I honestly don't want to ask him anything. >> Okay.
I don't want to ask him anything. >> Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear for the record that this is your you can have other chances too, but this is your chance to ask him questions >> if you have for him to answer regarding the issues before me >> regarding the issues in this case.
>> This isn't a chance to just talk. If you want to do that, I can send you to a breakout room or you all can talk offline. Um but this is a ch this hearing is about the issues before me that are pled for and this is the chance for both of you to present evidence and testimony regarding this.
>> Okay. Um, I I I mean I do I do have questions right here because I'm like, you know, are is he still a manager at his job? >> Your honor, objection, relevancy.
>> We're discussing a ma'am. Ma'am, I'm going to overrule the objection. >> Yes, I'm still employed at Chevron.
>> Okay. But so your your your um paper keeping your records, you're trying to say that you paid me all those um checks, but yet you've been a manager every on LinkedIn. I pulled this up.
Matt pulled this up. You've been a manager. Let's see.
You've been a director of a company. You've been a manager. >> Objection, your >> honor.
Objection, your honor. There's no question posed to the witness. Um, >> yeah.
Sustained. Ma'am, his question. >> Miss Viller Ali, you may call your next witness.
>> Thank you. I'd like to call Miss Lauren Vu. Now, his obligation was a monthly obligation.
Is that right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Now, you heard um what you saw states exhibit B shows that as of yesterday, Mr Vu is in a rears for child support.
Is that right? He owes >> Yes. Um the amount on on the screen says 167 uh 167,42068 on this piece of paper that was sent in the mail shows say >> I'm going to object to um to the witness testifying to document not admitted into evidence.
The the exhibit has already been admitted judge with >> an updated amount. I'm going to sustain the objection. >> Now, now Miss Vu, just you could just answer my questions.
Okay. You heard Mr Vu state that he paid you directly for child support, right? You heard him say that.
>> Yes, I heard I heard him say it. >> Now, and you saw the checks um the eight checks in the amount of $900 that were admitted into evidence. Correct.
You saw them. >> I saw what was on the screen. Yes.
>> Now, ma'am, was there ever an agreement between you and Mr vu to that he would pay you directly for child support. >> No, ma'am. >> Okay.
>> No. >> No, ma'am. >> Now, those checks were in the amount of $900.
Is that right? >> I saw. Yes.
>> Now, ma'am, did Mr VU had any other obligation to pay you a $900 per month amount um for anything else other than child support >> per month? No, he did borrow a loan, a business loan for he called it a business loan, but he had also needed u my co- signature for the beach house that we shared. >> Okay.
So, >> so give me give me one second. Okay, Miss Miss Vu. So, now you mentioned a business loan.
Who provided was there a business loan taken out? >> From my uh he did Doug Vu took out a business loan, but he also because he's brought up his credit. I don't know what the reason was, but he had also asked my husband.
Do you remember that Doug? >> Okay, Miss Miss Vu, if you could just answer my questions and don't you're not addressing your comments to Mr Now, did he borrow money from you? >> He did.
>> Okay. What was the amount of money that he borrowed? >> 25,000.
>> Now, when was when did he borrow this money? >> Before my husband would know cuz he borrowed it from my husband. And so that's why it's a joke.
>> Your your honor. Objection. Foundation.
Lack of >> overruled. But I will say, Miss Bill, I'm not following a lot. >> Yes.
Now, how was Mr Vu supposed to pay back the $25,000 loan? >> He said that he was going to pay us when he could. And so he paid uh $900 a few times.
Um I you'd have to talk to my husband. That's why we I needed him to be a witness, but every time I tried to bring him here, he he got shot down because it was him. It was it was it was my husband.
>> Ma'am, ma'am, let me ma'am, let me stop this for a moment. I'm I'm confused because we started this case fresh today and you were asked if you have any witnesses >> and you said no. No one shot you down for anything.
Um, >> I'm not sure what to do with this information. >> Well, I can continue to ask uh more questions from this party and see what other information should be. I object again I you know I object again foundation this lacks authent any authentication >> whatsoever.
>> Okay. Okay. My objection too.
I have object objection too. Where did that $900 come from? Where did that amount come from?
Because the divorce decree on here says that >> ma'am ma'am ma'am this is not appropriate what you're doing right now. So please calm down. Take a deep breath.
If you need to pause and take a break we can take a break. Um, but we can't just be yelling in court. And so I'm going to overrule his objection.
Um, and I'm going to hear more testimony on this. Be aware I'm the tryer of fact. I'm supposed to evaluate what I hear and receive and make my best judgment based on that.
I'm trying to do that. >> And just if you could just answer my questions. Were you involved in the this loan transaction?
>> Sorry, which transaction? >> The loan transaction. >> The loan.
Okay. >> No. No, I wasn't.
>> Were you aware that the $900 that Mr Vu was providing to you were for child support payments? >> No, ma'am. >> Did Mr Vu pay you anything directly for child support?
>> No, ma'am. >> No. >> Now, your oldest child, Nathaniel, did reside with Mr Vu for a period of time.
Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. And what was that time period that you resided with him?
>> It was March uh in 2011. Uh because we were going through we were under construction at our house after hurricane I >> Okay. And when did uh until when?
>> Uh no November. Um so Thanksgiving the the the holiday break. And so my brother was the one that came and grabbed Nathan and he was the one that informed me that he got kicked out of his dad's house.
>> Okay. Of which year? >> Uh 2017.
Uh 16. >> Okay. 2016.
The >> 2016 >> before Nathaniel graduated. >> Yes. November 2016.
>> November 2016. >> Because I came to the OAG's office in 2017. >> There was a calculation for possession credit for the time period of March 2011 ending in December 2016.
You saw that, right? As the exhibit. >> I saw that.
>> Okay. Okay. >> And I didn't agree with December because you know that was giving him more credit.
>> Understood. Now at this time I would like to offer states exhibit E which is the calculation possession credit for the time period of March 2011 through December 2016. >> Now you understand that this is an amortization calculation correct?
So it includes a calculation of interest that was acred as well. You understand that? >> Yes sir.
>> Okay. Now it starts March of 2011. Okay.
And this calculation includes the actual principal amount per month which was the 279. 17 difference per month. Correct?
Now and it also calculates the interest rate that was acred for each specific month. Do you understand that? >> Understand.
And according to this calculation based on the time frame which is all the way through December 2016, the maximum credit is $31,21861. Do you see that number there? >> I see the number.
Yeah. >> Okay. Now, but your testimony is that he should not be giving credit of this December 2016.
No ma'am >> because he did not Nathaniel did not reside with Mr Vu during that period. >> Okay. >> Correct.
>> Now, so that would be that we should subtract the $397. 82 from the actual total maximum credit this 31,2861. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And that Mr who would be entitled to possession credit for that time frame of March 2011 through November 2016. Correct.
>> Correct. But I'm object. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> That's okay. Go ahead. >> But I'm I'm arguing that I took care of the children with all their medical needs, everything that they needed.
And so that's why I'm like I don't think that he deserves the relief or any of that credit. Um, >> but I mean that's what's the court to decide. But I mean that Nathan did live with him.
Nathan did live with him from from March till November. I do agree with that. But giving him the you know that to me I don't agree with.
>> She does. >> Do you have any questions of Miss Johnson for her to answer? >> I'm almost afraid to answer because this will just get out of hand or ask because this will get out of hand.
Your honor, I I just want to be able to enter some some proof of >> Okay, this is not that time. So, let's get past my first question before we go on to other things. Um, do you want to ask her anything?
>> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, do you have anything further, Miss Florel?
>> No, judge. >> Okay. Um, since you're both representing yourselves, I'm going to give you both a chance to say anything else um you'd like to say.
The state does not represent either of you. Um, I don't represent anybody in this. I'm here to listen to evidence, a ruling.
Um, so I'm going to let you speak. I just want to remind you all this is court. Um, please follow court decorum as you would in a courthouse.
Even though you're on a computer, this is a courtroom. And, um, please remember to stick to um, the issues that are before us, which is a confirmation of a rears. Mr Vu, um, I'll let you go first.
>> Well, yeah, your honor. I I just want to just acknowledge the evidence that I put forward. I just want to acknowledge um that there are rears that I I I did owe um but they are not the amounts.
I I want to acknowledge that um we've accepted the possession credit. I want to acknowledge that um the you know the the um the reasonleness clause to be able to state that you know given those payments that I made that clearly show um they were intended for child support payments and the fact that they were accepted by her acknowledges those were those were child support payments. Um I want to acknowledge that um that's you thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, Miss Johnson, is there anything else you'd like to say? >> I want to say that what he has he it says on there that um that he put into evidence back in 2017.
He had all this time to prove that he paid me those. That was 2017 when I went to to report him. He had all this time.
Where is the evidence? The last um OAG's lawyer said that he he had to provide 10 what four checks. Where where's that proof?
I I don't know what h how am I supposed to defend something that doesn't exist? I'm just trying to show a pattern of of of deceit and lies with this person. Um, I was told I was told recently that um if I I just found out I didn't know, but if he um like got another job and he made more money, was he not supposed to report that?
I I don't know if that's true or not. Was he supposed to report that? Can the court answer that to me?
>> I cannot answer that question, ma'am. It's not relevant to this proceeding. I can't I'm not here to answer I can't give legal advice and it's not my place, especially something that is not relevant to this current proceeding before me.
inappropriate for me to be advising you. >> Okay. Well, he you know what I'm I'm stating is that that that he he's been hiding assets ever since we divorced.
When we were together, he was hiding assets. And after he was hiding assets, he had another restaurant called Cafe Madrid. If you look it up, you can't find it.
But if you go online and you put in Cafe Madrid, because I just found it. I went and scouring the internet for it. I couldn't find it.
But then when I scour the internet to uh and and put in key information because he was in the paper. Uh >> honor, at this time I am going to object um to relevance and narrative. >> Well, it's it's but it's but it's it's a pattern.
It's a it's a pattern. And he was supposed to report his earnings or his job, correct? Like if he was to get another job.
>> Judge, may I get a ruling on my objection? >> I'm going to sustain the objection. U please try to stick to relevant issues.
was contentious. I was kicked out of my beach house. >> That is not what I asked.
I'm asking the dates approximate. And I understand you don't have a date, but I'm asking time frame for the loan that you're talking about. >> 2000.
>> And you don't have to I'm asking you to pure yourself. Again, pre-divorce, post divorce would answer my question. Ma'am, are there any documents?
>> I'm gonna find a piece of paper with your handwriting with with your handwriting. >> Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, that's not appropriate. You're not supposed to be having a conversation with Mr Vu.
So, please stop doing that. Okay. I was asking a question before you interrupted me, Miss Johnson.
Um, do you have any documents regarding the loan? >> Not with me, ma'am. I'd have to find it.
>> They exist. >> I We It exists. Oh, it exists, but we're still under construction.
I mean, we It's in a box. >> I'd have to find it. >> Was the loan addressed in your divorce?
>> No. >> Did you know what he was supposed to pay towards the Oh, you said that it was what he could afford? He had several things going on at once.
He had Cafe Madrid. He had >> Your honor again objection relevancy. >> Ma'am, what's the relevance of that, ma'am?
Why is that relevant? >> It's relevant because I think that he thinks that by giving me $900 that he's applying it to the child, which we never agreed on. And where did that that amount come from?
>> Okay. What does Cafe Madrid have to do with any of this? Oh, it's it's yet another asset that he was trying to hide from me.
>> Okay. I'm going to um sustain his objection. >> I didn't know about it.
>> Ma'am, I'm going to sustain his objection. Okay. Um does anyone have anything further?
Any further evidence you'd wish to present? >> I would like the court I would like the court to honor what was on the divorce decree. I mean, it was his lawyer and he that drew up the amount and it was he that that that said that he was going to to honor it and he did not.
Everything that's that on that the divorce decree he has not honored. And that's why I'm I'm bringing up the beach house and the restaurant and you know this because it's a history. It's a pattern.
It's a pattern. Ask him about what happened to the restaurant. >> Your honor, again, objection, relevancy.
What happened to the beach house? >> I look outside the scope of this proceeding. >> I'm going to sustain both objections.
You're back on the record. Okay. I've looked at everything and reviewed everything.
Um um so I am going to give possession credits um in the amount of $30,820. 79. Um, and that is the full amount less the well the full amount per exhibit I'm sorry per exhibit E which is her proposed periods of possession less that last column and then I am going to also give some credit for direct payments and order a cumulative child support judgment against Mr in the amount of $75,000 as of I guess March 20th of 2024.
>> Yes, Judge. >> Um, in terms of a payout, I don't believe I ever heard how much is in the retirement account or how much approximately. Um guess for this amount um for a for a judgment of $75,000 judge the arars alone is $375 uh I'm sorry the interest >> I'm sorry yes the interest alone is $375 per month um state is just requesting that it cover the interest and an additional amount um so that it can cover that >> he was currently paying paying twice a month.
Is it just twice a month? 35923. >> Yes, judge.
It's about $71846. >> Why don't we set the pay then at $700 a month? >> Yes, your honor.
>> I'm sorry, your honor. My dog was I didn't hear that last amount about >> I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I can I I can man you can't hear me.
>> No. >> One more time. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. But sometimes it breaks up. So I don't know if it's going to break up again until you start speaking.
>> Okay. I'm I'm sorry. I I didn't understand the $700 amount that you >> It's a monthly amount you're going to pay to pay off that judgment.
>> Okay. >> Then it will change though because Well, it won't change, but it will go down faster because it's the quadro is going to be entered. But I have no idea how much is in that account.
So I don't know if it's going to pay it in full and once it's paid you won't owe that anymore or if there's going to be money left over. I I don't know. >> Okay.
So So the >> Can I ask a process question? So the if so the quadro will sweep the account for $75,000. Is that what that means?
>> I don't know what's in the account. So I don't know >> I don't know how much money is in the account. So I can't if there's only $5 in the account.
It's not going to take 75,000. And I don't know the number. I don't think it's five, but I don't know if it's 5,000 either.
>> Yeah. But but if if there is that amount, then what is the 700 a month for >> there is only $5 in the account. You're going to have this back.
>> I understand. I understand. Okay.
>> It's not going to take it's all the state can take from you. Not really taking from you. All that they can withhold or that you will owe because it might not you might have to voluntarily pay this depending upon your job.
Um, all you would owe would be to pay off the 75,000 plus any interest that occurs on it because it will acrew interest for the family code 6% perom. >> Yes, sir. >> And that 700 will begin April 1st of 2024.
As said, the judgment is as of March 20th. And then I'm going to order that Mr interview pay any court costs due to Galveston County for the motion to confirm um by September 30. >> How much how much is the court I'm sorry how much is the court?
>> I don't have an exact number for you, sir. It's usually a few hundred dollars. Just depends on the filing fee and service fees and what service did or didn't happen in the case.
Um so >> Yes, ma'am. And judge, you said September 30th of 2024, correct? >> Yes.
>> Thank you, your honor. >> And and how will I be notified of that cost? >> You should probably contact the district clerk's office in Galveastston.
>> May I appeal this? >> Yes, you may, ma'am. >> I'm appealing it.
>> Okay. That you might want to consult a lawyer or the law library or Texaslaw. com.
No, I I will I will get a lawyer. I'm letting Doug know. >> Saying it on the record.
I just want this clear on the record. Saying you appeal it on the record does not appeal it. Just want you to know that.
So, you might want to consult a lawyer. >> Thank you, your honor. And with that, your honor, may the parties be excused to a breakout room so they can prepare a final order on this case.
>> Yes, you all may be excused to the breakout rooms. The AG's office is going to draft the order. Um, it is a ruling of me, so if you refuse to sign, um, I will sign anyway.
One moment, ma'am. And um yes, so in case you didn't hear that, it's they're you're going to go to the breakout rooms. Miss Vill is going to draft the order.
She'll send it to you through Docy Sign to review and sign off on. If you refuse to sign, that's fine. I'm signing it doesn't mean you agree.
Just so you know that you refuse to sign, that's fine. Um because it was a ruling of the court, I will sign the order. Miss Johnson, are you okay?
The father raises two distinct offset theories and Texas law treats them very differently. The first is his claim to have made direct payments of $900 per month by check. Here the governing rule is exacting under Texas family code section 157.
263 and the credit provisions of section 157. 008. Payments made directly to the oblige rather than through the state dispersement registry are presumptively not credited because the family code channels support through the registry precisely so payment can be verified.
An obligor claiming direct payment credit bears the burden of proving both the payments and that they were intended and accepted as child support and the mother flatly denies any agreement to accept direct payments as support. testifying the $900 checks related to a $25,000 personal loan, not the child support obligation, with only eight of a claimed 102 checks produced and a sharp factual dispute over their purpose. This is a classic credibility question the judge as tri of fact must resolve.
The second theory is stronger and rests on a specific statute, possession credit. Texas Family Code section 157. 008 008 provides that an obligor who with the obliges consent had actual possession and control of the child for a time period in excess of court-ordered visitation may plead that as an affirmative defense and receive a credit against the aurich.
Both parties agree the older son Nathaniel lived with the father for an extended period following hurricane Ike damage to the mother's home. The live dispute is only the end date. The father says mid 2017.
The mother says November 2016 when she says the boy was put out of his father's house. The AY's proposed amortization exhibits calculating the credit at the statutory child support differential plus acred interest exist to translate that possession period into a dollar offset for the court. In ruling, the judge does exactly what the confirmation statute contemplates.
She weighs the competing evidence and enters findings on each disputed component. She grants a possession credit of $30,820. 79, adopting the mother's shorter possession period by using the agency's exhibit E and subtracting the final disputed month.
And she also allows some credit for the direct payments the father proved, then renders a cumulative child support judgment of $75,000 as of March 20th, 2024. That judgment is not the end of the obligor's exposure. Under Texas family code section 157.
265, child support a rears acrew interest at 6% simple interest per year, which is why the court fixes a monthly payoff of $700 designed to exceed the running interest, so the principal actually declines. The enforcement architecture then layers together. The QDRO will capture whatever exists in the Chevron pension toward the $75,000.
The judge is careful to explain she does not know the account balance. So the order may satisfy the judgment in full in part or leave a remainder the father must pay voluntarily or through wage withholding under chapter 158. She assesses court costs against the father under the agency's fee provisions and she correctly instructs the mother that announcing an appeal on the record does not perfect one.
A Texas appeal requires a timely notice of appeal under the rules of appellet procedure, which is why the judge points her toward a lawyer or the law library rather than treating the oral statement as sufficient. The broader lesson for our audience is about proof and procedure in support enforcement and how much of a party's outcome is determined before they ever reach the courtroom. Three themes stand out.
First, direct payments are a trap for the well-meaning obligor. Texas funnels child support through a state registry for a reason. And a parent who hands checks or cash directly to the other parent, however sincerely intended as support, assumes the burden of proving both the payment and its purpose, a burden that is nearly impossible to carry years later with only a handful of surviving check images.
The safe practice is to pay through the registry where every dollar is recorded and automatically credited. Second, possession credit is real but bounded. A parent who actually raises the child for a stretch beyond ordered visitation can offset a rears, but only for the period the other parent consented to and only if pleaded as an affirmative defense with dates that can be proven, which is why the single disputed month here mattered to the calculation.
Third, and most human, the hearing repeatedly shows a self-represented litigant trying to use cross-examination and closing as a chance to air a broader narrative of hidden assets and past betrayals. The beach house, the foreclosed restaurant, the undisclosed income, and being turned away each time on relevance grounds. The discipline the court enforces is not indifference to those grievances.
It is the recognition that a confirmation of a rear's hearing decides a defined question. How much is owed after lawful credits and evidence about other assets or other broken promises, however genuinely felt, belongs to a different proceeding. The party best served in enforcement court is the one who brings organized proof of payments and possession dates to the narrow issue at hand rather than a history of the marriage.
