From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:39:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7B2B1.E72A67E0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7B2B1.E72A67E0 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=83522 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed in Part; = Reversed and Remanded in Part; and Opinion filed = June 19,=20 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-05-01257-CV

_______________

 

AMADEO VAZQUEZ, Appellant

 

V.

 

MARIA VAZQUEZ,=20 Appellee

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

On Appeal from the 300th District=20 Court

Brazoria County,=20 Texas

Trial Court Cause No.=20 30521

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

 

O P I N I O=20 N

  In this = restricted=20 appeal, appellant, Amadeo Vazquez (AAmadeo@), appeals from a = default=20 divorce decree dissolving his marriage to appellee, Maria Vazquez=20 (AMaria@).  In seven = issues,=20 Amadeo contends he is entitled to review by a restricted appeal = and that=20 the evidence is insufficient to support (1) dissolution of the = marriage on=20 the ground of cruelty, (2) the conservatorship rights granted to = Maria,=20 (3) the reasonableness of Amadeo=3Ds monthly obligation = or his=20 additional obligations of medical support for the children and = maintenance=20 of a life insurance policy, (4) the property division as just and = right,=20 (5) the assessment of Maria=3Ds = attorney=3Ds fees against = Amadeo, and (6)=20 any relief based on the purported agreement of the parties.  = We=20 reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.. 

I. =20 Background

On September 13, = 2004, Maria=20 filed her divorce petition.  She filed her first amended = petition on=20 February 4, 2005.  Amadeo was personally served on April 16,=20 2005.  Amadeo did not file an answer.  Amadeo was not = present=20 when a hearing was conducted on August 30, 2005.  The trial = court=20 entered a default divorce decree.  Amadeo filed a notice of=20 restricted appeal on December 19, 2005. 

II. =20 Notice of Appeal

As an initial matter, = Maria=20 contends Amadeo limited his appeal to challenging the assessment = of child=20 support and division of marital property because he specifically = mentioned=20 these two issues in his notice of appeal.  = Consequently,  Maria=20 contends Amadeo waived his complaints in issues two, three, six, = and seven=20 pertaining to dissolution on ground of cruelty, conservatorship = rights,=20 attorney=3Ds fees, and relief = based on=20 agreement of the parties.  We disagree. =

The contents of a = general=20 notice of appeal and additional requirements particular to a = restricted=20 appeal are prescribed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure = 25.1(d). =20 An appellant is not required to specify issues in a general notice = of=20 appeal or notice of restricted appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. = 25.1(d). =20 Therefore, Amadeo has not limited his issues on appeal by = gratuitously=20 listing only some of those issues in his notice of appeal.  = See=20  Gunnerman v. Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc., 106 = S.W.3d 821,=20 824_25 (Tex. = App.CDallas 2003, pet. = denied)=20 (citing Rule 25.1 and holding party did not waive its right to = complain on=20 appeal regarding issue not included in notice of appeal); see = also=20 Wright v. Tex. Comm=3Dn on Human=20 Rights, No.=20 03-03-00710-CV, 2005 WL 1787428, at *2 (Tex. App.CAustin July 27, 2005, = pet.=20 denied) (mem. op.) (explaining that Rule 25.1 does not limit the = issues an=20 appellant may raise).  Accordingly, we address all of=20 Amadeo=3Ds issues.   =

III. =20 Right to Restricted Appeal

In his first issue, = Amadeo=20 contends that he meets the requirements for a restricted = appeal.  A=20 restricted appeal is a procedural device available to a party who = did not=20 participate, either in person or through counsel, in a proceeding = that=20 resulted in a judgment against the party.  Tex. R. App. P. = 30.  A=20 restricted appeal it is a direct attack on a default = judgment.  A=20 party filing a restricted appeal must demonstrate the following: = (1)=20 initiation of an appeal within six months after the judgment was = rendered;=20 (2) the appellant was a party to the suit; (3) the appellant did = not=20 participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment = complained of;=20 (4) the appellant did not timely file a post-judgment motion, = request for=20 findings of fact and conclusions of law, or file a notice of = appeal within=20 the time permitted by Rule 26.1(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate = Procedure; and (5) error appears on the face of the record. =20 See Tex. R. App. = P.=20 30;  Alexander v. Lynda=3Ds = Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 = (Tex.=20 2004).  For purposes of a restricted appeal, the face of the = record=20 consists of all the papers on file in the appeal, including the=20 reporter=3Ds record.  = See Osteen=20 v. Osteen, 38 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2001, no=20 pet.) (citing Norman Commc=3Dns v. Tex. Eastman=20 Co., = 955=20 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997)).  Before we can consider the = fifth=20 element in the remaining issues, we must determine whether the = first four=20 elements apply to this appeal.

The default divorce = decree was=20 signed by the trial court on August 30, 2005.  Amadeo filed a = notice=20 of appeal on December 19, 2005, within six months after the = judgment was=20 rendered.  See Tex. R.=20 App. P. 26.1(c).  Obviously, Amadeo was a named party = to the=20 suit.  Neither Amadeo nor his lawyer were present during the = hearing.=20  Amadeo did not file a post-judgment motion, request for = proposed=20 findings of fact and conclusions of law, or file a notice of = appeal from=20 the divorce decree signed by the judge within thirty days of its=20 entry.  See Tex. R.=20 App. P. 30.  Accordingly, we find Amadeo satisfies the = first=20 four requirements of a restricted appeal. 

IV.=20 Insufficient Evidence

In his second, third, = fourth,=20 fifth, sixth, and seventh issues, Amadeo argues that he satisfies = the=20 fifth requirement for a restricted appeal, i.e., error appears on = the face=20 of the record, because there is no evidence to support the relief = granted=20 in the divorce decree. 

A.       =20 Standard of Review

In reviewing a = no-evidence=20 point of error, we consider only the evidence and inferences = tending to=20 support the trial court=3Ds finding and = disregard all=20 contrary evidence and inferences; anything more than a scintilla = of=20 evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding.  = See=20 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. = 2003);=20 Barry v. Barry, 193 S.W.3d 72, 75 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] = 2006 no=20 pet.) (applying standard to a restricted appeal from a default = divorce=20 decree).

In a suit=20 for divorce, the petition may not be taken as confessed if the = respondent=20 does not file an answer.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' = 6.701=20 (Vernon 1998).  Thus, if a respondent in a divorce case fails = to=20 answer or appear, the petitioner must still present evidence to = support=20 the material allegations in the petition.  See Agraz v.=20 Carnley, 143 S.W.3d 547, 552 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 2004, no pet.) (citing O=3DNeal v.=20 O=3DNeal, 69=20 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Tex. App.CEastland=20 2002, no pet.); Ratisseau v. Ratisseau, 44 S.W.3d 695, 697 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism=3Dd by=20 agr.); Osteen, 38 S.W.3d at 814).    = Therefore, a=20 default judgment of divorce is subject to an evidentiary attack on = appeal.  See  id.  Accordingly, Maria was = obligated=20 to present evidence at trial supporting the material allegations = in her=20 petition.

 

B.     =20 Dissolution of Marriage on Ground of Cruelty

In his=20 second issue, Amadeo contends the evidence is insufficient to = support=20 dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.[1] =20 As Amadeo correctly asserts, Maria presented no evidence at the = divorce=20 hearing regarding any acts of cruelty to support the trial=20 court=3Ds finding=20 that the marriage should be dissolved on the basis of = cruelty. =20

Maria=20 argues that the record contained evidence of cruelty because  = the=20 trial court had a record of prior proceedings, including her = previous=20 application for a protective order.  In her affidavit = attached to the=20 application, Maria stated that Amadeo had pulled her out of her = vehicle by=20 her hair and forced her to the ground in the presence of their=20 children.  Maria argues that evidence of family violence = occurring=20 during the parties=3D = separation is sufficient to support a finding of cruelty. See = In re=20 Marriage of Rice, 96 S.W.3d 642, 649 (Tex. App.CTexarkana=20 2003, no pet.);  Henry v. Henry, 48 S.W.3d 468, 474 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). However, Maria cites no authority = holding=20 that a party may rely on an affidavit attached to a pretrial = motion to=20 satisfy its burden to present evidence at the hearing.  = Cf.=20 Rice, 96 S.W.3d at 649B50=20 (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding = cruelty=20 based on testimony at trial regarding physical abuse after = separation);=20 Henry, 48 S.W.3d at 474 (holding the trial court did not = abuse its=20 discretion in finding cruelty based on testimony at trial = evidencing cruel=20 treatment).  Accordingly, we sustain Amadeo=3Ds second=20 issue.  

C.     =20 Conservatorship Rights

In his=20 third issue, Amadeo contends there is no evidence to support the=20 conservatorship rights granted to Maria. Specifically, Amadeo = complains=20 that under the court=3Ds order,=20 Maria may establish the primary residence of the children without=20 geographical restriction, and Maria has the exclusive right to = obtain=20 passports for the children.  Amadeo argues Maria presented no = evidence to the trial court regarding the extent of his contact = and=20 relationship with the children to support these rights.

In=20 response, Maria contends the record supports her conservatorship = rights=20 based on her testimony that the terms and conditions of the decree = were in=20 the best interest of the children.  She also notes that the = trial=20 court must designate a conservator who has the exclusive right to=20 determine the primary residence of the children and to either = establish a=20 geographic limitation or specify the conservator who can determine = residency without geographic limitation.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' = 153.134(b)(1)(A),(B) (Vernon Supp. 2006).  She argues that = the record=20 supports the decision based on the Afamily=20 violence findings@ = in the=20 temporary ex-parte protective order previously issued by the trial = court.=20

In=20 determining conservatorship issues, the trial court primarily = considers=20 the best interest of the child.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' = 153.002=20 (Vernon 2002).  The trial court has  wide latitude in=20 determining best interests of the minor children.  See = Gillespie=20 v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982).  Factors = which may=20 be considered in deciding what is in the best interest of the = children=20 include: (1) desires of the children, (2) emotional and physical = needs of=20 the children now and in the future, (3) emotional and physical = danger to=20 the children now and in the future, (4) parental abilities of the=20 individuals involved, (5) programs available to those individuals = to=20 promote the best interest of the children, (6) plans for the = children by=20 these individuals, (7) stability of the home, (8) acts or = omissions of the=20 parent which may indicate that the existing parent-child = relationship is=20 not proper, and (9) any excuse for the acts or omission of the=20 parent.  See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, = 371B72 (Tex.=20 1976).

Here,=20 there is no evidence regarding any of these factors or any other = evidence=20 from which the trial court could determine the best interests of = the=20 children.  Maria=3Ds=20 testimony was limited to the fact that she had signed the final = decree and=20 thought the conservatorship was in the best interests of the=20 children.  These statements alone are conclusory and do not = rise to=20 the level of competent evidence the trial court could use to = determine the=20 best interests of the children.  See In re T.W.E., 217 = S.W.3d=20 557, 560 (Tex. App.CSan=20 Antonio 2006, no pet.) (finding father=3Ds=20 Amere=20 agreement@ = that he=20 saw no problem with his serving as a joint managing conservator as = Atoo=20 conclusory to amount to any evidence@). =20 Moreover, Maria cites no authority holding that a party may rely = on=20 findings of fact in a temporary order to satisfy the burden to = present=20 evidence at a hearing.  Accordingly, we find the evidence = is =20 insufficient to support the trial court=3Ds=20 determination of the specific rights of each parent as a joint = managing=20 conservator.  Appellant=3Ds third=20 issue is sustained.

D.     =20 Property Division

We next=20 address Amadeo=3Ds fifth=20 issue.   Amadeo contends the evidence is insufficient to = support=20 a just and=20 right property division of the marital estate. Specifically, = Amadeo=20 contends Maria merely testified that the division of marital = property she=20 requested in her proposed divorce decree was just and equitable = without=20 providing any explanation or reasoning for the proposed = division. =20 Maria = concedes=20 that there is insufficient evidence to support the property = division as=20 just and right.   

Maria=3Ds testimony was = limited to the=20 mere fact that she had signed the final decree concerning the = division of=20 marital property, and she thought it was fair and equitable.  = She did=20 not testify regarding the basis for her opinion that the proposed = division=20 was just and right, and the record does not reflect any=20 specifics regarding the nature or value of the property or=20 debts. =20 Therefore, Maria=3Ds testimony is=20 insufficient.  See Barry, 193 S.W.3d at 75 (finding = testimony=20 insufficient where appellee only testified that she requested the = division=20 of property as it was given, without testifying how  it was a = just=20 and right division); Wilson v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 533, 538 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [1st Dist.] = 2004, no=20 pet.) (holding that Agiven the dearth of = evidence=20 identifying, describing, and valuing the community estate . . . = there is=20 insufficient evidence to support the division of the community=20 estate@); = O=3DNeal, 69 S.W.3d at 350 = (reversing=20 default judgment in restricted appeal because record contained no = evidence=20 as to value of any property divided by trial court, no evidence of = any=20 improvements to land, and no evidence as to whether land was = separate or=20 community property).  Accordingly, we sustain = Amadeo=3Ds fifth issue. =20

E.     =20 Child Support, Health Insurance, and Life Insurance Policy =

We next=20 address Amadeo=3Ds fourth=20 issue.  Amadeo contends the evidence is insufficient to = support the=20 amount of his monthly child support obligation, or the requirement = that he=20 maintain health insurance for the children and a life insurance = policy=20 with Maria as the beneficiary. Maria concedes the trial court = erred by=20 determining the child support payments without sufficient = evidence. =20

We need not consider=20 Amadeo=3Ds challenge to the = sufficiency=20 of the evidence because based on our=20 holding that insufficient evidence supports the division of the = marital=20 estate, we remand the child support determination, including = the =20 health insurance and life insurance obligations, to the trial = court=20 because such a claim may be Amaterially=20 influenced@ = by the=20 property division.  See Wilson, 132 S.W.3d at 539 = (remanding=20 child support determination and property division in a restricted = appeal=20 because child support determination can be Amaterially=20 influenced@ = by the=20 property division).  Accordingly, we sustain = Amadeo=3Ds fourth=20 issue. 

F.      =20 Attorney=3Ds = Fees

In his=20 sixth issue, Amadeo contends the evidence is insufficient to = support=20 assessment of Maria=3Ds=20 attorney=3Ds fees=20 against him. Maria concedes there is insufficient evidence to = support the=20 assessment of attorney=3Ds=20 fees. 

A court=20 may apportion attorney=3Ds fees in=20 a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.  See = Tex. Fam. Code Ann. = ' = 106.002=20 (Vernon 2002).  A court may also apportion = attorney=3Ds fees in=20 a divorce action as part of a just and right division of = property. =20 See Sandone v. Miller-Sandone, 116 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex.=20 App.CEl Paso=20 2003, no pet.); Henry, 48 S.W.3d at 480.  The = reasonableness=20 of the fee is a question of fact that must be supported by = evidence. =20 See Sandone, 116 S.W.3d at 208 (citing Ismail v. = Ismail, 702=20 S.W.2d 216, 223 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref=3Dd n.r.e.);=20 Reyna v. Reyna, 584 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Tex. Civ. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1979, no writ).  A judgment awarding=20 attorney=3Ds fees may=20 be supported solely by the attorney=3Ds=20 testimony.  See Peeples v. Peeples, 562 S.W.2d 503, = 506 (Tex.=20 Civ. App.CSan=20 Antonio 1978, no writ) (citing Boysen v. Security Lumber = Co., 531=20 S.W.2d 454, 457=20 (Tex. Civ. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 1975, no=20 writ)).

Here, there was no = testimony by=20 Maria or her attorney regarding the amount of attorney=3Ds fees, the hours = spent by her=20 attorney in preparation of the case, the hourly rate charged by=20 Maria=3Ds attorney, or the=20 reasonableness or necessity of the  fees charged by = Maria=3Ds attorney.  = Because we=20 reverse the division of property and because there was no evidence = presented on the issue of attorney=3Ds fees, we conclude = the trial=20 court abused its discretion in awarding judgment for = Maria=3Ds attorneys = fees.  See=20 Barry, 193 S.W.3d at 76;  Sandone, 116 S.W.3d at=20 208.  Accordingly, we sustain Amadeo=3Ds sixth = issue.

G.     =20 Relief Based on Agreement of the Parties =

In his=20 seventh issue, Amadeo contends the evidence is insufficient to = support any=20 relief based on a purported agreement of the parties.  = Specifically,=20 Amadeo notes three provisions in the divorce decree purportedly = based on=20 the agreement of Amadeo and Maria but points out that he did not = make any=20 kind of appearance and agree to these provisions.  Maria = concedes the=20 evidence is insufficient to support any agreement of the parties = on these=20 provisions.

The three=20 agreed provisions include: (1) the requirement of alternative = dispute=20 resolution before filing any modification proceeding, (2) the=20 parties=3D = acknowledgments and representations about signing the divorce = decree, and=20 (3) the indemnification agreement regarding debts incurred by one = party=20 for which the other party may be liable and not listed in the = divorce=20 decree.  We find no evidence in the record regarding any = agreement by=20 both parties to these provisions.  We sustain = Amadeo=3Ds seventh=20 issue. 

Accordingly, we = reverse the=20 portions of the trial court=3Ds judgment addressing = conservatorship rights; division of the marital estate; = calculation of=20 child support, health and life insurance; apportionment of=20 attorney=3Ds fees; and the=20 parties=3D agreed provisions = regarding=20 alternative dispute resolution, acknowledgments and = representations about=20 signing the divorce decree, and indemnification, and remand for = further=20 proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We affirm the = reminder of=20 the=20 = judgment.          &nbs= p; =20

 

 

 

 

/s/       =20 Charles W. Seymore

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and = Opinion=20 filed June 19, 2007.

Panel consists of = Justices=20 Frost, Seymore, and Guzman.

 

 

 

 


[1]  The trial court also dissolved = the marriage=20 on the ground of insupportability.  Amadeo does not contest = this=20 ground.  =

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7B2B1.E72A67E0 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_01C7B2B1.E72A67E0 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_01C7B2B1.E72A67E0--