See Ke nnedy v . Kennedy , 125 S.W .3d 14 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. denied), f or the 1 history of this liti g ation. Al tho ug h w e c on str

ue he r b ri e f l ibe ra lly

to f a ir ly a dd re ss a ll i ssu e s a

pp ro pr iate for

thi s 2 ap p ea l , we o b s e r v e t h a t ev en th o u gh M s . Ke n n ed y i s p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , she is not relieve d of the require ment to comply

with the rele vant rules of proce dural a

nd substantive law: There cannot be two sets of proc edura l rules, one for litiga nts with counsel and the o t h er for litiga

nts repre senting themselves. L itigants who r epre sent the mse lve s mu st c omp ly

wi th t he a pp lic a ble pr oc e dura l ru le s, or

e lse the y wo uld be g iven an unfair adva

ntag e over

litigants re prese nted by

counsel. Ma ns

fie ld 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00299- CV

Ja ne t M ayK e nne dy, App e lla nt

v. Bobb y Joe K ennedy, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 99-1 437, HO NORAB LE FRED A. MO ORE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
After thirty -two y ear s of marr iag e, a contentious divorce in Aug ust 2001, a modified judgme nt in October 2001 that placed the husband in posses s i o n and contr ol of community rea l proper ty to be sold and split between the parties, a nd a prior a

ppeal to t h i s C o u rt , J anet Ke nnedy 1 appea ls the trial court’s injunctive r elief to e nforc e its prior judgme nt a nd a judgme nt of contempt ag ainst her. She challeng es g ener ally the injunction and judg ment of conte mpt. Be cause we lac k 2State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184-85 (Te x . 1978). W e may not have a

separ ate standa

rd for a litiga nt who is not repre sented by counsel. Id
. See Ke nnedy , 125 S.W .3d at 22 n.9. 3 2 jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the jud g me nt o f c on te mpt and the tr ial cou rt did no t a

bu se its dis c re tio n in g ranting injunctive relief to e nforc e its prior judgme nt, we dismiss the issues relating to the judgme nt of conte mpt and aff

irm the order

g rantinginjunctive relief
.
P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND I n it s mo dif

ie d ju dg me nt, the tr ia l c ourt or de re d th a t D r. K enn e dy be pla c e d in possession and control of a community

proper ty corpor ation, Alamo Ranch, I nc., which owned vari o u s p ro p erties, a

nd that he be g iven the author ity to sell the corpor ation’s assets with the pr oc e e ds to be sp lit be tw e e n the pa rt ie s. Th e tr ia l c ourt

or de re d th a t Ms . K e nn e dy re c e ive the fi rs t $350,000 from the ne t proce eds of the sa le of the pr operties, a nd h al f of any

amount exceeding $350,000. Although Ms. Ke nnedy appea led var ious aspects of the divorce , she did not challeng e the proper ty issues ad d re s s ed i n the modified judg ment. The mandate issued from this Court on 3 October 29, 2003. As Dr . K e nn e dy

se t out to s e ll the pr op e rt ie s a s d ir e c te d b y the tr ia l c ourt , M s. Kenne dy set out to defe at the sales. On October 31, 2003, Dr. Kenne dy obtained a t em p o rar y
re str a ini ngor de r a g a ins t he r. At a he ari ngon

Dr . K e nn e dy ’s re qu e st f

or a te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n, he ld be fo re As so c iate Judg e B re nd a Smith on No ve mbe r 6 , 2 00 3, Ms. Ke nn e dy re ite rate d h e r i nte nt t o
c on tin ue liv ing on the pr op e rt ie s. At the he ari ng , Dr . Ke nn e dy de sc ri be d Ms. Ke nn e dy ’s e ff or ts t o thw art a tte mpt s to se ll the pr op e rt ie s. Re g ardi ng a 10 -a c re Ha

y s Co un ty

pr op e rt y that he so ld i n3

20 01 , D r. Ke nn e dy

te sti fi e d th a t Ms. Ken ne dy put a lis pe nd e ns on

the pr op e rt

y , c ut t he loc ks , remove d his real e state sig ns, and put up her own signs de clar ing that the proper ty was not for

sale. Reg ardinga 100-a cre trac t in Hay s County , Ms. K ennedy cut the fenc es and put up her own sig ns
an d t e mp o r ar y l i v i n g s t r

u c tu r e s o nt h e p r o p e rt y. The battle intensified reg arding a 254-ac re ranc h in G illespie County , known by Dr. Kenne dy as the Doss Ranc h and by Ms. K ennedy as the Alamo Ranch. Dr. Kenne dy testified that Ms. Ke nn e dy

c ut t he fe nc e s and tr e sp a sse d, and that he ha d r e po rt e d th e se a c tio ns to t he sh e ri ff ; Ms
. Kenne dy claimed that the f

ence she cut be longe d to her. D r. Kenne dy testified that Ms. Kenne dy place d a conc rete slab in the cre ek that diver ted the cr eek a

nd destroy ed the r oadwa

y , pushing the
c on c re te on to a

ne ig hb or ’s pr op e rt

y . B oth Ke nn e dy s so ug ht t o le a se the pr op e rt y to d if fe re nt h un te rs . Dr. Ke nnedy

testified that Ms. Kenne dy lived on the property in temporary

structure s and left tra sh, inc lud ingba g s of wo ol, on the pr op e rt y . On e re a lto r de c lin e d to ma rk e t th e pr op e rt

y be c a us e sh e did not want to encounte r Ms. Kenne dy , who would tell pr ospective buy ers the proper ty was not for

sale. At the close of

the hea ring on November

6, the cour

t g rante d the tempora

ry injunction restraining Ms. Ke nn e dy

fr om en te ri ngthe pr op e rt y , e nte ri ngint o le a se a g re e me nts or re nta l a g re e me nts wi th hunte rs or

oth e rs , in te rf

e ri ngwi th th e sal e or li sti ngof the pr op e rt ie s, and

g ivi nghe r a

we e k to
remove her pe rsonal items. Ms. Kenne dy did not appeal the te mporary injunction. Ms. Ke nn e dy

c on tin ue d to liv e on

the Gi lle sp ie County pr op e rt y , a nd pr ob le ms w ith fe nc e s c ut, sig ns re mov e d, and re a lto rs and

pr os pecti ve b uy e rs ru

n o ff pe rs ist e d a s a

re su lt o f M s. Kenne dy ’s pre sence . Dr. Kenne dy then soug ht a n injunction. Following a n April 15, 2004 hea

ring on the injunction, the trial court entered an order on May 6, finding Ms. Kennedy

in contempt and4

perman en t l y enjoi ning he r fr om the various ac tiviti es pre viously included in the tempora ry injunction. The injunction decre ed that Ms. Kenne dy be enjoined f

rom

– e nte ri ngor

c omi ngwi thi n 2 00 y ard s o f t he name d p ro pe rt ie s;

– enter ing into any

lease ag ree ments or re ntal ag ree ments with hunters or other s fo r t he pr op e rt ie s;

– interfe ring in any

way with the sale or listing of the prope rties; and

– placingany

signs on the pr operties, tea ri n g d o wn any

sale sig ns place d on the proper ties, otherwise loc king or blocking the e n t ranc e to the prope rties, or oc c up y ingthe pr op e rt ie s.
Th e or de r a llo we d M s. Ke nn e dy to e nte r t he pr op e rt

y to r e mov e he r b e lon g ing s. The judg ment of conte mpt recited that Ms. Kennedy had v iolated the ter

ms of the temporar y injunction by l i v i n g on the prope rties “a s a matter of daily routine, since the day

of the Tempora ry I njunction he rein, from her own testimony .” The court a lso found—ag ain from he r own testimony —that Ms. Kennedy

interfe red w ith the sale of the properties “as charg ed in t he application for c ontempt by

locking g ates, cutting fences, destroying signs and defa cing the sig ns adver tising the sale of the proper

ty .” The court found that there was insufficient evidenc e that she ha d lease d the pr op e rt ie s f

or de e r h un tin g a ft e r t

he iss ua nc e of the wr it o f t e mpo ra

ry inj un c tio n. Ho ldi nghe r i n violation of the temporar

y injunction, the court suspende d a 90-da y sentenc e subjec t to Ms. Kennedy
r e m o v i n g h e r

b e l o n g i n g s f

r o m t h e p r o p e rt y an d

o b e yi n g t h e i n

j u n c t i o n . O n M ay 1 0 , M s . K e n n e dy,
w h o h a d b e e nr e p r e s e n t e d

b y c o u n s e l , f

i r e d h e r at t o r n e y.5 After another hear ing, on J une 22, 2004, the court found Ms. K ennedy in contempt and orde red he r to jail for 45 day s. At that hear ing, on Dr. Kenne dy ’s motion for enf orce ment and a per manent injunction, the trial cour t observed [W ]e’re still liti g ating things that we re r esolved thre e y ear s ag o. That’s the g rounds for the c urre nt a

ppeal. Well, it’s a neve r ending —it’s got to end. I

think that’s what I to ld y o u - a ll in Ja nu ar

y o r w h e n e v e r it w a s . . . . T h e s tate a p p e llate sy stem has denied he r appe al on divorce on the m erits, t here fore , I ’ve got final order s. I ’ve g ot jurisdiction to enforce my order , which is sell the land and g ive her the 350,000 and whateve r else she g ets out of it. . . . [W] e all need to g o on to something e lse. And I ’m tr y ingto. Ic an’ t f

ig ur e ou t ho w t o g e t e ve ry bo dy on to whate ve r c ome s n e xt in life and I sure wish I

could.
The court then proce eded with the hear ing. Ms. K ennedy testified first. Afte r ac knowledg ing that she put her ow n lock on the g ate at th e Do s s (A l amo) Ranc h, Ms. Kennedy ref used to answe r wh e the r s he ha d b e e n o n th e pr e mis e s o f t he ra nc h, ins te a d invo kin g he r f if th a me ndme nt r ig ht t o “re fuse to inc riminate my self.” She testified that she understood that the modified judg ment direc ted that th e land

be so ld at ma

rk e t va lue , s ug g e sti ng a t on e po int that th e c ourt

wa s “ pu sh ingtow ard s” a sale at less than mar

ket in violation of t he judgment. Dr. Kennedy then presented the testimony of L e e E lm s . E lm s te s ti f ie d th a t h e h a d ma d e an o f f e r o f $ 5 4 6 , 0 0 0 f

o r th e D o s s p r operty

but wi thd re w f ro m th e c on tr a c t du e to v ari ou s c omm un ic a tio ns fr om M s. Ke nn e dy ob je c tin g to t

he sa le and cla iming owne rship of the prope rty . Elms withdrew his offe r whe n the t i t l e compa ny , afte r
rec eiving communications from Ms. Ke nnedy , also withdrew a nd resig ned. Ms. Kenne dy asser ted to the court that he r def

ense to the motion for enforc ement was that “this will be the f ourth time I ’m being put in jail innocently on false char g es” on issues relating to the j udg ment and the sale of the6

proper ties. Ms. Kenne dy acknow ledg ed that the m odified judg ment is a final judg ment; the court found that she ha d violated the judg ment by rema ining on the la

nd and by obstructing its sale. Her motion to s tay

and a writ of h a b e a s c o r p us were den ie d b y

thi s Co ur

t. M s. Ke nn e dy a pp e a ls the pe rm ane nt i nju nc tio n a nd jud g me nt o f c on te mpt
.
DI SCU SSIO N As a pre liminary matter, thi s appea l proce eds wit hout the benefit of findings of fa ct and conc lusions of law in the record before us. None were reque sted. We theref ore pr esume that the trial cour

t made all nec essar

y finding s to support its j udg ment, and we wil l aff irm based upon any leg al t heory that finds support in the evidenc e. W ilkerson v. W

ilkerson , 992 S.W .2d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).

Ms. Kenne dy ’s overriding complaint in her oversized brief and reply brief is that she
rema ins the sole office r and ow ner of the share s of Alamo Ranch, I nc., and is, there fore , the owner of the prope rties held by

the cor poration. B ut the modified judg ment rec it es otherwise—that the pr op e rt ie s are c omm

un ity ass ets— and

pla c e s D r. Ke nn e dy

in p os se ssi on

and c on tr ol o f t

he a sse ts and g ives him a

uthority to se ll the corpor ation’s stock and assets. She acknow ledg ed that she lived on the prope rties af

ter the c ourt order ed her

off of the prope rties so they could be sold. Ms. Kenne dy challeng es the e vidence supporting the trial court’s rulings due to the lack of cre dibilit y

of Dr. Kenne dy ’s evidenc e, the “ concea l ment” of e vidence , the lack of due proc ess af

forde d her in the various hea

ring s, and the illeg al sale of corpor ate a s s et s. To the extent these issues relate to the modified judg ment, such as he r ar g ument that the s ale of the assets is i lleg al, Ms. Kenne dy did not tim e ly a pp e a l th e se iss ue s and

the y are no t be fo re us .7 Contempt is an inherent powe r of the c ourts beca use i t is nece ssary

to insure that courts will be able to enforc e th ei r judgme nts and order s. Bessette v . W .B. Conkey

Co. , 1 94 U. S. 324, 333 (1904). The customary proce dure by

which judg ments and orders gra nting injunctive r elief
are enfor ced is by

a conte mpt procee ding. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 692. To the extent Ms. Ke n n edy
c ha lle ng e s th e jud g me nt o f c on te mpt fo r f a ili ngto o be y

the c ourt ’s or de rs , w e mus t dismi ss t his issue, as courts of a

ppeal g ener ally

do not have jurisdiction to revie w contempt orde rs by way of direc t appea l. See, e .g., W agner v. W

arnasch , 2 95 S.W. 2d

89 0, 89 3 ( Te x. 19 56 ); In re A.C.J. , 146 S.W. 3d 32 3, 32 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 2 00 4, no pe t.) ; In re T.L. K. , 9 0 S. W. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 1 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.). This is t rue even whe re the contempt orde r is appea led along with a judg ment that is appea lable. A.C.J. , 146 S.W .3 d at 3 2 6
. A writ of ha be as c or pu s is the proper form of relief from contempt order s involving conf inement, se e id ., a re medy Ms. Kennedy soug ht un succe ssfully

in 2004. We therefor e lac k jurisdiction to entertain any challeng e to the jud g me nt o f c on te mpt
.

He r r em ai n i n g i s s u es , i f an y , ap p ea r t o re l at e ge n er al l y t o t h e c o n d

u ct o f t h e h ea ri n gs on the injunctive re lief issued by the trial c o u rt
. W e view her c halleng e throug h the lens of the standard of

revie w for a

n injunction: the gr ant of injunctive re lief is ordinarily wi t h in the trial court’s sound discretion, and on appea l, revie w i s limit ed to the narrow question whether the trial
cour t’s action constituted a c lear abuse of discretion. See, e .g., J

an us Fi lm s, In c . v . Ci ty

of F or t W or th , 358 S.W .2d 589, 589 (Tex. 1962). We view the e vidence in the light most favor able to the trial court’ s ruling. Davis v. H uey , 571 S.W .2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978). The r ecor d fully supports the tr ia l c ourt ’s a c tio n a

nd do e s n ot d e mon str a te a

de nia l of du e pr oc e ss.8 Ms. Kennedy

urg es t hat Dr. Kennedy ’s testimony and other evidenc e is not cre dible, “it being full of inconsistencies a nd being contra dicted by

a disintereste d party”; that Dr. K ennedy ’s counsel “ conce al[ed] purported evidenc e in open court”; t hat t he trial court made sever al er rors of law by “ig noring documented e vidence and misapplying the law, resulting in pe rver se ruling s” and h e r i n c ar c e r a t i o n ; an d

t h a tt h e c o u rtc o u n t e n an c e d i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y. T h e r e c o r d

r e v e a l s c o n f

l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e an d t h e p art i e s ’ t e s t i m o n y d i f f e r e d g r e a t l y. Even their p er ce p t i o n s with reg ard to the r ole of Dr . Kenne dy and the sa le of the pr operties conflicte d, an issue which the trial court recog nized had bee n settled by the modified judg ment. At the April 15, 2004 hea

ring , Ms. K ennedy admitted that she continued to live on the Doss (A lamo) pr op e rt y and ha d e re c te d te mpo ra ry liv ing str

uc tur e s. At the June 22 he ari ng , sh e inv ok e d h e r f if th amendment rights in re sponse to questions about whether she re sided on the prope rty . There was ample evide nce to show that Ms. Kennedy continued to l i v e on the properties in violation of the injunction, that she ere cted struc tures, that she cut fenc es, and that she interfe red w ith the sale of the proper ties. The “c oncea led” e vidence to which she evidently objects wa s a judg ment and citation ag ainst her f

or hunting on the property without a li cense . I t was admitt ed to show that she wa s on the pr op e rt

y on De c e mbe r 1 3, 20 03 . N o abu se of dis c re tio n e xists wh e re the tr ia l c ourt ba se s it s decision upon conf

licting e vidence and the c redibility of the witnesse s. Id
. The role of the a

ppellate c ourt in revie wi n g t h e gra nt of injunctive relief

is lim ited to determining whether an abuse of di scre tion occur red, a nd it cannot substitute its judgme nt for that of the trial c ourt. Id
. A n in ju n c ti o n th a t is n o t v o id

mu s t b e o b e y e d

w h il e it r e ma in s in

e f f e c t. We fully rec og nize the authority

of a tria l court t o en fo rc e i ts orders. He re, a s no findings of fac t or9

conclusions of lawwe re fi l ed, the judgment must be upheld on a ny leg al theory

supported by

the
re c or d. F ind ing no a

bu se of dis c re tio n in

the tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio ns in a ny re sp e c t, w e ov e rr

ule Ms. Ke nn e dy ’s iss ue s and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Jul y

28, 2005