## Facts

- A final divorce judgment (later corrected nunc pro tunc) awarded the former wife the marital residence, an Oldsmobile, and 150 shares of Texaco stock held in the former husband’s name.
- The judgment also awarded $3,750 in attorney’s fees against the former husband and taxed costs against him, stating for each that execution should issue.
- The judgment included a general clause that both parties must execute instruments necessary to carry out the judgment.
- After the judgment became final, the former wife moved for contempt for noncompliance.
- Following notice and hearing, the trial court found the former husband in contempt and ordered confinement for one day and until he purged himself by:
  - signing unspecified “required instruments” to transfer the stock and vehicle;
  - signing and executing a deed conveying the residence;
  - paying $89 in court costs; and
  - paying the $3,750 attorney’s fee award to the former wife’s counsel.
- The former husband sought habeas corpus relief challenging the validity of the contempt commitments.

## Issues

1. Whether contempt may be based on an order requiring a party to sign “any required instruments” to transfer property when the required documents and acts are not specified.
2. Whether contempt may compel execution of a deed when the underlying divorce judgment awarded real property but did not clearly and specifically order execution of a deed.
3. Whether contempt may enforce payment of court costs labeled as a money judgment “for which let execution issue.”
4. Whether contempt may enforce payment of attorney’s fees labeled as a money judgment “for which let execution issue.”

## Decision

- Habeas corpus relief was granted, and the relator was ordered discharged from custody.
- The contempt provision requiring execution of unspecified instruments to transfer stock and the vehicle was void for lack of clear, specific directives.
- The contempt provision requiring execution of a deed was void because the underlying judgment did not specifically order that act.
- The contempt provisions requiring payment of court costs and attorney’s fees were void because the judgment made them enforceable by execution rather than contempt.

## Legal Principles

- A contempt commitment for violating a decree is valid only if the decree states the required acts in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms so the person knows exactly what must be done.
- A general directive to execute “all instruments necessary” to effect a judgment, without identifying the instruments or actions required, is insufficient to support contempt incarceration.
- When a divorce judgment awards costs or attorney’s fees as money judgments and provides that execution shall issue, the proper enforcement mechanism is execution, not contempt.

## Conclusion

The court held the contempt order void because the divorce judgment did not precisely define the acts required to transfer property, and because the costs and attorney’s fees were ordinary money judgments expressly collectible by execution rather than enforceable through confinement for contempt.


Ex parte Choate, 582 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ)