From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:49:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7A3C5.2FD93F80" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7A3C5.2FD93F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83465 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed = and=20 Memorandum Opinion filed May 31, 2007.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-05-00740-CV

____________

 

IN THE INTEREST OF = A.A.M. AND=20 C.E.M., Minor Children

 

 

On Appeal from the = 257th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 03-00158

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an=20 appeal from the trial court=3Ds order=20 transferring the right to designate the primary residence of the = minor=20 children A.A.M. and C.E.M. from their mother, appellant Cynthia = Moore=20 n/k/a Cynthia Williams, to their father, appellee James = Moore.  We=20 affirm the trial court=3Ds=20 judgment.

I. =20 Factual and Procedural Background

On December 4, 2003, = the trial=20 court signed an agreed decree of divorce ending the Moore=20 marriage.   Pursuant to the agreed decree, Cynthia and = James=20 were appointed joint managing conservators of their two children, = A.A.M.=20 and C.E.M..  Cynthia was given the right to determine the=20 children=3Ds primary = residence.  The=20 decree included a standard possession order and ordered James to = pay child=20 support in the amount of $150 per month.

Only a few months = later, on=20 February 20, 2004, Cynthia filed a filed a petition to modify the=20 parent-child relationship, alleging that there had been a material = and=20 substantial change in circumstances since the date of the divorce = and=20 sought an increase in child support.  James filed a general = denial=20 and a counter-petition in which he asked the trial to court to = grant him=20 the right to designate the children=3Ds primary residence = and order=20 Cynthia to pay child support.  James=3Ds pleadings included = a request=20 for temporary orders and were supported by an affidavit in = accordance with=20 Texas Family Code section 156.102.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' 156.102 (Vernon = Supp.=20 2006) (governing suits to modify the designation of the person = having the=20 exclusive right to designate the primary residence of a child = filed within=20 one year of a previous designation).

After a three-day = hearing, the=20 trial court issued a temporary order transferring the right to = designate=20 the primary residence of the children from Cynthia to James and = ordered=20 Cynthia to pay child support.  A nonjury trial on the merits = began on=20 April 1, 2005.

A large portion of = the=20 testimony at trial centered around the many arguments and disputes = that=20 James and Cynthia had when transferring possession of the = children. =20 These disputes were typically verbal and often within earshot of = the=20 children.  For instance, James testified that the first such = incident=20 occurred in December 2003, shortly after he moved into an = apartment=20 following the divorce.  He testified that Cynthia showed up = at the=20 apartment while the children were inside and began yelling and = cursing at=20 him about his recent move.  According to James, the children = were=20 afraid and skittish after this incident. 

James also testified = that in=20 May 2004, Cynthia slapped him and hit him in the back of the head = because=20 she believed he was fifteen minutes late returning the = children. =20 According to James, he had arrived at Cynthia=3Ds home to return the = children=20 at 6:00 p.m. as required, but Cynthia was not there, so he = returned=20 fifteen minutes later.  James filed a police report = concerning this=20 incident, but charges were not filed. 

James further = testified that=20 while he was returning the children on Father=3Ds Day of 2004, he was = physically attackedCin the = children=3Ds = presenceCby Cynthia or by=20 Cynthia=3Ds mother or = sister.  The=20 incident left a scratch on James=3Ds neck that was = photographed=20 and admitted as evidence at trial.  According to James, this=20 altercation lasted nearly two hours.  He testified that he = could not=20 leave the premises on this occasion because Cynthia=3Ds sister blocked his = truck with=20 her vehicle.  Cynthia offered the testimony of her = brother-in-law,=20 Sheriff Dwayne Benn, that none of the four visitation exchanges he = witnessed were confrontational.  

James also testified = that in=20 May 2004, the children told him that Cynthia had moved from her = home at=20 404 San Jacinto to a new home.  James testified that Cynthia = did not=20 inform him of this move until June 2004, and instead continued to = transfer=20 possession of the children at the 404 San Jacinto residence during = May and=20 June.  Although Cynthia admitted she initially did not inform = James=20 that she had sold the home at 404 San Jacinto, she contends the = sale=20 occurred in July 2004, and testified she did not give James notice = of the=20 move because the children were in his possession that = month.

Regarding the=20 children=3Ds safety and welfare, = James=20 testified that he observed and videotaped the children being left = alone at=20 Horace Williams=3Ds[1] = apartment.  It is undisputed that Williams has a prior felony = conviction for possession of marijuana; however, the conviction is = twenty-five years old.  Cynthia admitted that the children = were left=20 alone in Williams=3Ds apartment for ten = minutes on=20 occasions when Williams needed to go to work and Cynthia had yet = to return=20 to the apartment.  James also observed and videotaped Cynthia = leaving=20 the children at a swimming pool without parental supervision; = Cynthia=20 testified that she had asked another woman at the pool to watch = the=20 children while she went to the bathroom.  =20

James also offered = more=20 specific testimony concerning the children=3Ds physical and = emotional=20 well-being.  According to James, he learned that A.A.M. had = told=20 Cynthia that she wanted to live with her father, and Cynthia had = responded=20 by hitting A.A.M. in the mouth. James testified that after this = incident=20 he decided to take the children to counseling.  When the = children=20 began living with James, they began counseling sessions with Carol = Stevens,[2] = a=20 licensed professional counselor and social worker.

Stevens testified = that by the=20 time of trial she had seen each child ten times.  According = to=20 Stevens, the children told her things which caused her to be = concerned for=20 their emotional well-being, but not their physical safety, when = they were=20 with their mother.  Specifically, she said that Cynthia = questioned=20 A.A.M. at length about her desire to live with her father.  = Stevens=20 also echoed James=3Ds testimony about an = incident=20 in which Cynthia struck A.A.M., reopening a prior wound to her = lip, and=20 threw C.E.M. onto a sofa.  Ms. Stevens contacted Child = Protective=20 Services after she learned of these allegations.  Cynthia = denied=20 slapping A.A.M. on the face or throwing C.E.M.  CPS concluded = that=20 the risk factors to the children were controlled and closed its=20 investigation.

On April 29, 2005, = the trial=20 court found that a modification was in the best interest of the=20 children.  Accordingly, it entered an order transferring to = James the=20 exclusive right to establish the primary residence of the children = and=20 requiring Cynthia to pay child support and provide medical = support. =20 No findings of fact were requested or entered, and Cynthia timely = filed a=20 notice of appeal.

II. =20 Issues=20 Presented

In her first issue, = Cynthia=20 challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to = support=20 the trial court=3Ds implied findings = that (a) the=20 children=3Ds living environment = with her=20 had a detrimental effect on the their emotional welfare, and (b) = the best=20 interests of the children required a change in the terms of the = joint=20 managing conservatorship.[3]  In=20 her second issue, Cynthia contends that the trial court had = Ainsufficient = information for a=20 proper exercise of discretion.@

III. =20 Analysis

A. =20 Standards of Review

Because the = sufficiency of the=20 evidence and abuse of discretion standards of review often overlap = in=20 family law cases, appellate courts employ a hybrid analysis. =  In=20 re D.S., 76 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2002, no=20 pet.).  Under the overarching standard, the question of=20 conservatorship of a child is left to the sound discretion of the = trial=20 court when it sits as trier of fact.  Zeifman v. = Michels, 212=20 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. App.CAustin 2006, pet.=20 denied).  The trial court is in the best position to observe = the=20 demeanor and personalities of the witnesses and can Afeel@ the forces, powers, = and=20 influences that cannot be discerned by merely reading the record.=20  Id.  

Within=20 this overarching standard, we engage in a two‑pronged = inquiry to determine=20 whether the trial court (1) had sufficient information on which to = exercise its discretion, and (2) erred in its application of = discretion.=20  See id. at 588.  The traditional sufficiency = review=20 comes into play with regard to the first question, and those = standards are=20 discussed infra.  See id.  With regard to = the=20 second question, we determine whether, based on the elicited = evidence, the=20 trial court made a reasonable decision.  Id.  = Stated=20 inversely, the appellate court must conclude that the trial=20 court=3Ds decision=20 was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.  Id.  = Thus, we=20 resolve the second question by determining whether the trial=20 court=3Ds findings=20 constitute an abuse of discretion.

Because=20 our inquiry both begins and ends with the abuse of discretion = standard, we=20 begin by describing this standard of review, and then discuss the = legal=20 and factual sufficiency standards of review that pertain to the = question=20 of whether the trial court had sufficient information on which to = exercise=20 its discretion.  We then set forth the law governing the = modification=20 at issue before analyzing appellant=3Ds issues.=20

1.        =20 Abuse of Discretion

A trial = court=3Ds order modifying a = joint=20 managing conservatorship will not be disturbed on appeal unless = the=20 complaining party can show a clear abuse of discretion.  = Gillespie=20 v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982).  The test = for=20 abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted in an = arbitrary and=20 unreasonable manner, or whether it acted without reference to any = guiding=20 principles.  Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 = S.W.2d=20 238, 242 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S. = Ct. 2279,=20 90 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1986). The fact that a trial court may decide a = matter=20 within its discretionary authority in a different manner from an = appellate=20 court in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate an abuse of=20 discretion.  Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241B42.  Thus, an = abuse of=20 discretion does not occur as long as some evidence of a = substantive and=20 probative character exists to support the trial court=3Ds decision.=20  Id.    =20

2.        =20 Legal Sufficiency

Because the appellant = attacks=20 the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which = she did=20 not have the burden of proof, she must demonstrate on appeal that = there is=20 no evidence to support the adverse finding.  See Croucher = v.=20 Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex. 1983).  The evidence is = legally=20 insufficient only if (1) the record discloses a complete absence = of=20 evidence of a vital fact, (2) the court is barred by rules of law = or of=20 evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove = a vital=20 fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more = than a=20 mere scintilla, or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively the = opposite=20 of a vital fact.  Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. = Martinez, 977=20 S.W.2d 328, 334 (Tex. 1998).  In determining whether there is = legally=20 sufficient evidence to support the trial court=3Ds exercise of = discretion, we=20 consider evidence and inferences favorable to the finding if a = reasonable=20 factfinder could, and disregard evidence contrary to the finding = unless a=20 reasonable factfinder could not.  City of Keller v. = Wilson,=20 168 S.W.3d 802, 828 (Tex. 2005).

3.        =20 Factual Sufficiency

In analyzing a = challenge to the=20 factual sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the entire record = to=20 determine if the trial court=3Ds finding is so = against the=20 great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly = unjust.  See Manon v. Tejas Toyota, Inc., 162 S.W.3d = 743,=20 752B53 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2005, no=20 pet.).  In an appeal from a bench trial, findings of fact are = the=20 equivalent of jury answers to special issues.  Lindsey v.=20 Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 1998, no = pet.).=20  When findings of fact and conclusions of law are not = properly=20 requested and none are filed, the judgment of the trial court must = be=20 affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory that finds = support in the=20 evidence.  Reach Group, L.L.C., v. Angelina Group, 173 = S.W.3d=20 834, 837 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2005, no=20 pet.).  In the absence of findings and conclusions, the = judgment of=20 the trial court implies all necessary fact findings in support of = the=20 judgment.  Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 = S.W.2d 80,=20 83B84 (Tex. 1992).  = As the=20 reviewing court, we cannot substitute our conclusions for those of = the=20 trial court if there is sufficient competent evidence of probative = force=20 to support the trial court=3Ds findings.  = See id.=20

4.        =20 Governing Law

A trial court may = modify an=20 order that provides for the appointment of a conservator of a = child if=20 modification would be in the best interest of the child.  = Tex. Fam.Code Ann. = '' 156.101, 153.002 = (Vernon=20 2006); In the Interest of V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. = 2000).=20  In=20 addition to this primary requirement, the circumstances of the = child, a=20 conservator, or other party affected by the existing order must = have=20 materially and substantially changed since the rendition of the = order=20 before a modification will be warranted.  See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. = ' = 156.101=20 (Vernon 2006).

In=20 determining the child=3Ds best=20 interest, courts may consider, inter alia: =

(a)    =20 the desires of the child,

(b)    =20 the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the = future,=20

(c)      =20 the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the = future,=20

(d)=20       the parental abilities of the = individuals=20 seeking custody,

(e)      =20 the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the = best=20 interest of the child,

(f)       =20 the plans for the child by these individuals or by the agency = seeking=20 custody,

(g)      =20 the stability of the home or proposed placement,

(h)      =20 the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the = existing=20 parent‑child relationship is not a proper one, and =

(i)       =20 any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent.

Holley v. = Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367,=20 371B72 (Tex. = 1976).

B.       =20 Sufficiency of the Evidence

Section=20 156.102 of the Texas Family Code requires an affidavit to be filed = by the=20 person seeking modification if it has been less than a year since = the=20 order was rendered. Tex. = Fam. Code=20 Ann. ' = 156.102=20 (Vernon 2006).  This affidavit, as is relevant to this case, = must=20 contain an allegation, supported by facts, that the = child=3Ds present=20 environment may endanger the child=3Ds physical=20 health or significantly impair the child=3Ds=20 emotional development.  See id.  Cynthia does not = dispute=20 that James complied with this requirement.

Similarly,=20 Cynthia does not challenge the trial court=3Ds express=20 or implied finding that the circumstances of a party affected by = the order=20 have materially and substantially changed since the final divorce = decree=20 was signed on December 4, 2003.  Instead, she contends that = the=20 evidence does not support the trial court=3Ds finding=20 that the children=3Ds living=20 environment with her Ahad a=20 detrimental affect [sic] on the children=3Ds=20 emotional welfare.@  We=20 disagree.

         =20 First, the trial court heard Carol Stevens testify that she was = concerned=20 for the children=3Ds=20 emotional well-being when they were with their mother.  In=20 particular, Stevens testified that Cynthia questioned A.A.M. at = length=20 about her desire to live with her dad and other issues.  Ms. = Stevens=20 also echoed James=3Ds=20 testimony that Cynthia slapped A.A.M. and threw C.E.M. onto a = couch. =20 Pictures that the children drew for Ms. Stevens, which were = entered into=20 evidence, depicted Cynthia hitting them and drinking = beer.

In=20 addition, James testified extensively about arguments the children = witnessed and overheard during custody exchanges.  According = to=20 James, A.A.M. told him that Cynthia struck her, causing a prior = injury to=20 bleed.  Finally, James described instances in which the = children had=20 been left without parental supervision at a swimming pool, and had = been=20 left without any adult supervision at Horace Williams=3Ds=20 apartment. 

Under the=20 applicable standard of review, we conclude there is sufficient = evidence to=20 sustain the trial court=3Ds=20 determination that the children=3Ds living=20 environment with Cynthia had a detrimental affect on their = emotional=20 welfare.  We therefore overrule Cynthia=3Ds first=20 and second issues in part, and turn our attention to the trial=20 court=3Ds=20 assessment of the best interests of the children.  =

C.=20        Application of Best Interest=20 Factors

Because findings of = fact and=20 conclusions of law were neither requested nor filed, we presume = that the=20 trial court made all necessary findings to support its = judgment. =20 Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 83B84. =

We begin our analysis = by=20 addressing the first Holley factor, the desires of the=20 children.  Although Cynthia testified that the children told = her they=20 wanted to live with her, Carol Stevens testified that A.A.M. and = C.E.M.=20 told her they preferred living with their father.  Stevens = also=20 testified that Cynthia and sometimes Horace Williams questioned = the=20 children about this issue, but the children feared their=20 mother=3Ds response to hearing = their=20 preference.  Ms. Stevens stated that behavior such as=20 Cynthia=3Ds questioning caused = her=20 concern for the children=3Ds emotional = well-being. =20 She further opined that children should be able to love one parent = without=20 having to justify that to the other.

We next consider the = emotional=20 or physical needs of the children.  The record indicates that = Cynthia=20 had previously been held in contempt for nonpayment of child = support,=20 although she brought the payments current after she sold the house = at 404=20 San Jacinto.  In addition, James testified that at least on = one=20 occasion, Cynthia did not provide the children with adequate = clothing and=20 did not feed them adequately on other occasions.  The = testimony=20 concerning James=3Ds care of the = children showed=20 no such deficiencies.  Thus, the trial court could have = inferred that=20 James is better able to meet the children=3Ds emotional and = physical=20 needs. 

There was also = testimony that=20 if the children were to resume living with their mother, they = would have=20 to attend school in the Cy-Fair district, rather than the LaPorte = district=20 in which they had attended school when they last lived with their=20 mother.  The trial court reasonably could have considered = this an=20 additional destabilizing influence that could have a detrimental = affect on=20 the children=3Ds social and academic = development.

Moreover, Horace = Williams=20 testified that Cynthia is forbidden by court order from driving, = and she=20 relies on Williams and her sister for transportation.  This = is=20 further evidence from which the trial court could reasonably = conclude that=20 James, who is under no such restrictions, is better able to meet = the=20 children=3Ds needs.

The trial court may = also have=20 considered the emotional and physical danger to the children now = and in=20 the future.  In addition to Stevens=3Ds testimony that she = was=20 concerned for the children=3Ds emotional = well-being, James=20 produced evidence that Cynthia had left the children without = parental=20 supervision at a swimming pool, and had left them completely = unattended at=20 Horace Williams=3Ds home. =

The trial court also = heard=20 evidence that Cynthia moved without giving notice of the move as = required=20 by the final divorce decree.

Considered together, = the=20 evidence weighs strongly in James=3Ds favor.  On = this record,=20 which includes the trial court=3Ds implied findings of = fact, we=20 cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding = James=20 the right to designate the children=3Ds primary = residence.  To=20 the contrary, the record supports the determination that this = modification=20 is in the best interest of the children.

Accordingly, we = overrule=20 appellant=3Ds issues and affirm = the trial=20 court=3Ds = judgment.

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =      =20

 

 

 

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;         =20 /s/     Eva M. Guzman

Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment rendered and = Memorandum Opinion filed May 31, 2007.

Panel consists of = Justices=20 Anderson, Hudson, and Guzman.

 

 

 


[1]  Horace Williams was = Cynthia=3Ds boyfriend during the summer of 2004 = and=20 Cynthia=3Ds husband at the time of trial. =

[2]  This person=3Ds name is also spelled ACarole Stephens@ in the record.

[3]  Although Cynthia=3Ds stated issues present challenges to = Afindings of fact@ contained in the trial = court=3Ds modification order, findings of fact = are=20 required to be filed separately from and not recited in a = judgment. =20 Tex. R. Civ. P. = 299a. =20 In the absence of a requirement that specific findings of fact be = included=20 in the trial court=3Ds order, findings included in a judgment = cannot=20 form the basis of a claim on appeal.  Frommer v. = Frommer, 981=20 S.W.2d 811, 813B14 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1998 pet. = dism=3Dd); see also In re E.A.C., 162 = S.W.3d 438,=20 442 (Tex. App.CDallas 2005, no pet.) (AThe legislature made it clear in = enacting the=20 family code that, unless expressly provided otherwise, suits = affecting the=20 parent-child relationship are to be governed by the same rules of=20 procedure as those generally applied in other civil = cases.@) (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' 109.002(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006)).  = Moreover,=20 even if the recitation of this finding were sufficient to preserve = a=20 complaint on appeal, the particular language that Cynthia = challenges=20 appears to address a requirement for modification that was = formerly found=20 in section 156.104 of the Family Code, but that was eliminated by = an=20 amendment in 2001.  Compare Act approved April 24, = 1995, 74th=20 Leg., R.S., ch. 20, ' 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws, 113, = 173B74, amended by Act approved June = 16, 2001,=20 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 289, ' 8, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 3108, 3110 = (permitting=20 modification of custody when, inter alia, retention of a = sole=20 managing conservatorship would be detrimental to the welfare of = the=20 child) (emphasis added) with Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' 156.101 (Vernon Supp. 2006) (permitting = modification of prior court order if circumstances have = substantially=20 changed and the modification would be in the child=3Ds best interest, but containing no = requirement=20 that the trial court find current conditions have a detrimental = effect on=20 the child=3Ds welfare).  Nevertheless, because = much of=20 Cynthia=3Ds argument implies a challenge to the = sufficiency=20 of the evidence supporting the implied finding that the = modification is in=20 the children=3Ds best interest, we interpret her stated = issues to=20 present this=20 argument.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7A3C5.2FD93F80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7A3C5.2FD93F80 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7A3C5.2FD93F80--