Max Paul Kozinn v. Kinneret Kozinn

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00378-CV Max Paul Kozinn, Appellant v. Kinneret Kozinn, Appellee FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-21-007135, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Max Paul Kozinn appeals the trial court’s order on appellee Kinneret Kozinn’s petition for enforcement of orders included in the parties’ Agreed Final Decree of Divorce (the Decree). 1 The trial court found that Max committed twenty-three violations of the Decree’s provisions, held him in contempt for each violation, ordered him to comply with the Decree’s provision to sign an amended tax return, and ordered him to pay Kinneret’s counsel $47,138.50 in attorney’s fees. We affirm. BACKGROUND The parties divorced in June 2022. The Decree contained multiple provisions with which the parties were ordered to comply. One of the provisions addressed the parties’ federal tax 1 Because the parties share a surname, we will refer to them by their given names for clarity. liabilities. For the years from the date of marriage to December 31, 2021, the parties had filed their individual tax returns as “married, filing jointly.” It was ordered that both Max and Kinneret would be equally responsible for all tax liabilities, with each paying 50%. It was also ordered that if any refunds were made, each party would be entitled to one-half of the refunded amount. Finally, it was ordered that Max and Kinneret, within five days of the entry of the Decree, “execute and deliver to the other party any and all other deeds, deeds of trust, bills of sale, assignments, consents to change of beneficiaries of insurance policies, tax returns, and other documents, and will do or cause to be done any other acts and things as may be necessary or desirable to [e]ffect the provisions and purposes of” the Decree. It further stated: “If either party fails to comply with this provision, that party is ordered to pay all reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as a result of that failure.” In November 2022, Kinneret filed a cross-petition for enforcement of the Decree, which she amended in May 2023.2 Kinneret’s live petition alleged that Max had violated the Decree by failing to comply with the Children’s Bill of Rights provisions of the Decree and that, relevant here, Max on three different occasions refused to sign an amended federal income tax return for 2020 and thereby prevented Max and Kinneret from receiving a tax refund of $2,287.00. 3 Kinneret’s petition for enforcement requested that the court impose on Max a $500 fine for each 2 Max filed his petition for enforcement first, alleging that Kinneret “violat[ed] the Children’s Bill of Rights in denying the child reasonable use of the telephone to place and receive calls with [Max].” He also claimed that Kinneret “failed to comply with [the Decree] by failing to pay 50% of the taxes, penalties, and interest due for the 2021 tax year.” Max sought damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and a judgment for contempt. 3 The Kozinns’ CPA Larry Phillips prepared the parties’ original tax return. Due to 2020 CARES Act unemployment tax credit cross-filings by the IRS and Mr. Phillips, which resulted in an overpayment of taxes, Mr. Phillips prepared an amended return to request a refund for the overpayment and an additional refund for the child tax credits. 2 violation of the Decree and order him to pay to her legal counsel the attorney’s fees she incurred in securing legal services necessary to enforce and protect her rights and the rights of their minor child. In March 2023, both Max and Kinneret filed competing petitions to modify the parent-child relationship, each seeking to modify the terms of the parties’ possession schedule of their minor child. After a hearing, the trial court granted Kinneret’s second amended enforcement petition and signed an order finding Max in contempt for committing twenty-three violations of the Decree, including three violations relating to Max’s failure to sign a federal income tax return for 2020, ordered him to comply with the Decree’s original directive to do so, and ordered him to pay Kinneret’s attorney’s fees. In three other orders, the trial court also granted Kinneret’s petition to modify, granted in part Max’s motion to modify, and denied Max’s motion for enforcement. In two issues on appeal, Max asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) ordering him to sign an amende