Cas e No

. 06-14-00036-C V

I n th e Cour t o f Appeal s

6t h Judicia l Distric t

Texarkana

, Texa s

Fran k Keathley

, Appellant

v

.

J.J

. Investmen t Company

, L.T.D.

, e t al.

, Appellees

APPELLEE' S BRIE F

TRAVI S P

. CLARD Y

Stat e Ba r No

. 0426802 0

JERR Y W

. BAKE R

Stat e Ba r No

. 2402677 6

CLARD Y LA W OFFICE S

20 9 E

. Mai n Stree t

Nacogdoches

, Texa s 7596 1

Ph : 936-564-250 0

Fax : 936-564-250 7

ATTORNEY S FO R APPELLEE

, CORBIT T BAKE R ACCEPTED

06-14-00036-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/15/2015 11:03:08 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKTABL E O F CONTENT S

Tabl e o f Content s 1 1

Inde x o f Authoritie s i v

Statemen t o f Fact s 1

Summar y o f Argumen t 7

Argumen t 9

A

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. One

, whic h argue s

tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e

$30,00 0 fro m registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n th e

wri t o f executio n levie d unde r Corbit t Baker' s judgmen t

agains t Fran k Keathle y becaus e a wri t o f executio n i s no t

a prope r lega l remed y fo r enforcemen t o f a judgmen t agains t

a judgmen t debtor' s fund s i n th e possessio n o f a thir d part y

an d becaus e th e fund s wer e i n lega l custod y o f th e Cour t 1 0

Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Two

, whic h argue s

tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e

$30,00 0 fro m registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n th e

wri t o f executio n levie d unde r Corbit t Baker' s judgmen t

agains t Fran k Keathle y becaus e th e lev y o n th e Clerk' s

fund s faile d t o compl y wit h th e requirement s o f Rul e 63 7 B

.

o f Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. an d Tex

. Prop

. Cod e Sec

. 42.00 3 1 8

C

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Three

, whic h argue s

tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e

$30,00 0 fro m registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n

Corbit t Baker' s instructio n t o th e Constabl e t o lev y th e

wri t o f executio n agains t al l o f th e $41,763.5 0 becaus e Fran k

Keathle y di d no t ow n al l o f th e fund s an d th e lev y wa s

wrongfu l a s t o th e othe r partie s wh o di d no t ow n a n interes t

i n th e fund s 2 2

Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Four

, whic h argue s

tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e D

.$30,00 0 fro m registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n

lev y o f th e wri t o f executio n issue d unde r th e Corbit t Bake r

judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y becaus e th e judgmen t

debtor' s ownershi p interes t i n th e registr y fund s wa s exemp t

fro m executio n unde r Propert y Cod e Sec

. 42.00 1 an d Sec

. 42.00 2 2 4

Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Four

, whic h argue s

tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e

$30,00 0 fro m registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n lev y

o f th e wri t o f executio n issue d unde r th e Corbit t Bake r

judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y a s entered Marc h 8

, 2011

, becaus e th e judgmen t wa s no t a fina l judgmen t a s require d

b y Rul e 622

, Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. an d becaus e th e wri t wa s voide d

whe n th e judgmen t wa s revoke d b y th e judgmen t entered

Apri l 12

, 2011

, reinstate d b y th e Orde r entered Apri l 18

, 2011

, appeale d an d reforme d an d affirme d b y th e Twelft h

Cour t o f Appeal s Opinio n delivere d Apri l 2

, 201 3 an d

Judgmen t date d Apri l 24

, 201 1 E

.

2 7

Repl y t o additiona l issue s raise d i n Appellant' s Praye r 3 1 F

.

3 3 Praye r

Certificat e o f Complianc e 3 4

Certificat e o f Servic e 3 4

Appendi x 3 6

i nINDE X O F AUTHORITIE S

Cases :

Ackermann v

. Vordenbaum, 40 3 S.W.2 d 36 2 (Tex

. 1966 ) 3 2

Amstadt v

. U.S

. Brass Corp., 91 9 S.W.2 d 64 4 (Tex

. 1996 ) 1 1

Brasher v

. Carnation Co., 92 S.W.2 d 573

, 57 5 (Tex

. Civ

. App.—Austi n 1936

, wri t dism'd ) 2 6

Burns v

. Bishop, 4 8 S.W.3 d 45 9 (Tex

. App.—Housto n

[14 t h Dist. ] 2001

, n o pet. ) 1 8

Campbell v

. Stucki, 220 S.W.3 d 56 2 (Tex

. App.—Tyle r 2007

, n o pet. ) 26

, 2 7

Challenge Co. v

. Sartin, 260 S.W.31 3 (Tex

. Civ

. App

. Dalla s 1924

, n o writ)...

. 1 7

Cliff v. Huggins

, 72 4 S.W.2 d 77 8 (Tex

. 1987 ) 3 2

Collu m v

. DeLoughter

, 53 5 S.W.2 d 39 0 (Tex

. App.—Texarkan a

1976

, wri t ref d n.r.e. ) 21

, 2 2

Davis v. Huey

, 57 1 S.W.2 d 85 9 (Tex

. 1978 ) 9

, 1 0

Downer v

. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2 d 23 8 (Tex

. 1985 ) 9

, 1 0

Ford v

. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3 d 61 5 (Tex

. 2007 ) 2 9

Gonzales v

. Daniel, 85 4 S.W.2 d 25 3 (Tex

. App.—Corpu s Christ i

1993

, orig

. proceeding ) 15

, 16

, 1 7

Hardy v

. Construction Systems, Inc., 556 S.W.2 d 84 3 (Tex

. Civ

. App.—Housto n [14 t h Dist ] 1977

, wri t ref d n.r.e. ) 17

, 1 8

Ingersoll—

Ran d Co. v

. Valero Energy Corp., 997 S.W.2 d 20 3

(Tex

. 1999 ) 11

, 20

, 2 5

Monroe v

. Grider

, 88 4 S.W.2 d 81 1 (Tex

. App.—Dalla s 1994

, wri t denied ) 9

i vMurphy v

. McDaniel, 2 0 S.W.3 d 87 3 (Tex

. App.—Dalla s 2000

, n o pet. ) 9

Reede r v

. Intercontinental Plastics Mfg. Co., 58 1 S.W.2 d 49 7

(Tex

. Civ

. App—Dalla s 1979

, n o writ ) 1 3

Ros s v

. 3D Tower, Ltd., 824 S.W.2d 270 (Tex

. App.—Housto n

[14t h Dist. ] 1992

, wri t denied ) 2 6

Schlager v

. Clements, 939 S.W.2 d 18 3 (Tex

. App.—Housto n

[14t h Dist. ] 1996

, wri t denied ) 1 0

Texas State Optical v

. Wiggins, 88 2 S.W.2 d 8 (Tex

. App.—Housto n

[1 s t Dist. ] 1994

, n o writ ) 9

Tobe r v

. Turner of Tex., Inc., 668 S.W.2 d 83 1 (Tex

. App.—Austi n

1984

, n o writ ) 9

, 1 4

11

, 13

, 1 9 Travelers Ins. Co. v

. Joachim, 31 5 S.W.3 d 86 0 (Tex

. 2010 )

U.S. v. Powell

, 63 9 F.2 d 22 4 (5 t h Cir

. 1981 )

Vaughn v

. Drennon, 32 4 S.W.3 d 56 0 (Tex

. 2010 ) 1 7

2 9

Statutes :

1 6 Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e §34.00 4

1 6 Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e §34.00 5

25

, 2 7 Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.00 1

2 5 Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.00 2

19

, 20

, 2 1 Tex

. Prop

. Cod e § 42.00 3Rules :

Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 24. 1 1 3

Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 43. 2 24

, 27

, 3 3

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 29 6 3 1

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 0 3 2

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 1 3 2

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 2 3 2

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 329 b 3 2

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 62 1 1 0

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 62 8 21

, 3 0

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 63 7 19

, 2 0

v iSTATEMEN T O F FACT S

Pursuan t t o Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 38.2(a)(B)

, Appelle e woul d correc t an d

supplemen t th e Statemen t o f Fact s se t fort h i n th e Appellant' s Brie f wit h th e

following :

O n Marc h 8

, 2011

, th e Count y Cour t a t Law

, No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texa s

signe d a fina l judgmen t i n favo r o f th e Appelle e Corbit t Bake r ("Baker" ) agains t

th e Appellan t Fran k Keathle y ("Keathley" ) an d hi s wife

. (Appendi x 1)

. Th e

judgmen t awarde d Bake r hi s attorney' s fee s i n th e amoun t o f $70,000

, post

judgmen t interes t an d cour t costs

. (Appendi x 1)

. Th e judgmen t als o provide d a

contingen t awar d o f additiona l attorney' s fee s shoul d th e cas e b e appealed

.

(Appendi x 1)

.

O n Marc h 30

, 2011

, Bake r sough t an d obtaine d a wri t o f executio n pursuan t

t o Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 62 8 base d o n th e Marc h 8 t h judgment

. (C R 37)

. Th e wri t wa s

issue d fo r th e collectio n o f "th e good s an d chattels

, land s an d tenement s o f th e sai d

Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley.

. .th e sai d su m o f Attorney' s Fee s i n th e

amoun t o f $70,000.0 0 fo r service s rendere d throug h th e tria l o f thi s case. " (C R

37)

. O n Marc h 30

, 2011

, Constabl e Randl e Gree n o f Frankli n County

, Texa s

levie d th e wri t o f executio n upo n "monie s i n Registr y o f Court. " (C R 39)

.

O n o r abou t Apri l 8

, 2011

, Keathle y sough t an d obtaine d a Temporar y

Restrainin g Orde r fro m th e 62 n d Judicia l Distric t Cour t o f Frankli n County

, Texas

.

1(C R 42-66)

. I n th e Orde r Grantin g th e Temporar y Restrainin g Order

, th e distric t

cour t foun d tha t "Constabl e Green

, respondent

, intend s t o lev y agains t $40,00 0

hel d i n th e Registr y o f th e Cler k o f thi s Cour t tha t ha s bee n ordere d b y thi s Cour t

t o b e pai d t o Fran k Keathle y unde r Orde r fo r Distributio n o f Funds.

. .an d tha t

Distric t Cler k Elle n Jaggers

, responden t intend s t o mak e a distributio n o f th e

$40,00 0 i n fund s hel d i n he r Registr y t o Corbit t Bake r unde r lev y o f th e Wri t o f

Execution. " (C R 64)

.

O n Apri l 12

, 2011

, th e Count y Cour t a t Law

, No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texas

,

mistakenl y signe d a "fina l judgment"

, whic h wa s submitte d b y th e Keathleys

, an d

whic h reverse d th e jur y finding s an d awarde d damage s t o Plaintiffs

. (C R 58)

. A s

soo n a s th e Smit h Count y cour t wa s mad e awar e o f thi s error

, th e tria l judg e signe d

th e Orde r Vacatin g Fina l Judgmen t Erroneousl y Entere d Apri l 12

, 2011

.

(Appendi x 2)

. Th e validit y o f th e Marc h 8

, 201 1 fina l judgment

, th e Apri l 12

, 201 1

"Fina l Judgment"

, an d th e Apri l 18

, 201 1 Orde r Vacatin g Fina l Judgmen t

Erroneousl y Entere d Apri l 12

, 201 1 wa s th e subjec t o f a n appea l b y th e Keathley s

t o th e 12 t

h Cour t o f Appeals

. (C R 64)

.

O n Ma y 12

, 2011

, Keathle y file d notic e wit h th e tria l cour t o f hi s

supersedea s bon d an d th e wri t o f supersedea s issue d b y th e Smit h Count y Clerk

.

(C R 76). Followin g a hearin g o n Keathley' s reques t fo r issuanc e o f a temporar y

injunction

, th e tria l cour t entere d a n Orde r Grantin g Temporar y Injunction

. (C R

291)

. Th e tria l cour t ordere d tha t th e temporar y restrainin g orde r b e extende d a s a

temporar y injunctio n base d o n th e fac t tha t i t wa s "presente d wit h notic e o f

issuanc e o f a wri t o f supersedea s an d postin g o f supersedea s bon d i n th e

underlyin g lawsui t fro m whic h th e wri t o f executio n involve d i n thi s cas e wa s

issued. " (C R 91)

. Pursuan t t o th e Orde r Grantin g Temporar y Injunction

, Constabl e

Gree n wa s commande d t o desis t an d refrai n fro m executio n o f th e wri t an d th e

Distric t Cler k Elle n Jagger s wa s commande d t o desis t an d refrai n fro m distributin g

th e fund s hel d i n th e registr y o f th e court

. (C R 92)

.

O n o r abou t Augus t 1

, 2011

, Keathle y file d a Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f

Executio n i n th e Count y Cour t a t La w No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texas

. (C R 176)

. I n

hi s Motio n t o Quash

, Keathle y cite d severa l bases

, including :

• "Lev y o f th e Wri t o n th e Distric t Cler k o f Frankli n County

, Texa s

withou t firs t levyin g th e Wri t o n Plaintiff s a s judgmen t debtors

, wa s

illegal

, a s a matte r o f la w becaus e i t deprive d th e judgmen t debtor s o f

thei r righ t t o declar e thei r exemp t propert y an d t o designat e an y propert y

tha t the y recognize d a s subjec t t o executio n a s require d b y th e rule s fo r

executio n unde r Rul e 629

, TRC P an d a s provide d b y Articl e 16

, Sectio n

49

, Tex

. Const

. an d Sectio n 42.00 1 an d Sectio n 42.002

, Te x Prop

. Code

. Th e lev y mad e unde r th e Wri t wa s don e withou t an y notic e t o th e

judgmen t debtor s an d i n violatio n o f th e procedure s require d b y Sectio n

42.00 3 Tex

. Prop

. Code. " (C R 178)

.

• "Upo n entr

y o f th e Fina l Judgmen t date d Apri l 12

, 201 1 i n favo r o f

Plaintiff s an d agains t Defendant

, th e Wri t wa s void

, a s a matte r o f la w

sinc e th e Marc h 8

, 201 1 judgmen t unde r whic h i t wa s issue d wa s vacated

. Unde r Rul e 622

, TRC P (Execution)

, issuanc e o f a wri t o f executio n

require s a fina l judgment

. Sinc e th e judgmen t unde r whic h th e Wri t wa s

issue d wa s vacated

, th e Wri t wa s no t supporte d b y a judgmen t an d wa s

void

, a s a matte r o f law. " (C R 178-79 )

3• "Th e Court' s Apri l 18

, 201 1 entr y o f th e Orde r Vacatin g th e Apri l 12

, 201 1

Fina l Judgmen t an d reinstatin g th e Fina l Judgmen t signe d Marc h 8

, 2011

, di d no t reinstat e th e Wri t o f Executio n issue d Marc h 30

, 201 1 unde r th e

Marc h 8

, 2011judgmen t becaus e Rul e 62 2 TRC P require s a wri t o f

executio n t o b e issue d unde r a fina l judgment

. I n thi s case, th e fina l

judgmen t coul d onl y hav e bee n th e on e signe d Apri l 18

, 2011. " (C R 179 )

• "Lev y o f th e Wri t o n Elle n Jaggers

, Distric t Cler k o f Frankli n County

, Texa s fo r fund s hel d i n th e Clerk' s registr y wa s no t a lev y o f a wri t o f

executio n bu t wa s a n attempte d garnishmen t o f fund s o f a judgmen t debto r

i n th e possessio n o f a thir d party

. Th e Wri t use d b y Defendan t t o reac h

fund s i n th e hand s o f th e Distric t Cler k faile d t o compl y wit h th e

requirement s fo r a wri t o f garnishmen t state d unde r Sectio n 63.00 1 t o

63.008

, Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e an d i s voi d a s a matte r o f law. " (C R

179-80 )

Followin g a hearin g o n th e Motio n t o Quas h th e Wri t o f Execution

, th e Smit h

Count y cour t issue d a n orde r denyin g same

. (C R 195)

. Further

, th e tria l cour t

foun d tha t "th e on e an d onl y fina l judgmen t i n thi s matte r i s th e Fina l Judgmen t

date d Marc h 8

, 2011, " an d th e wri t o f executio n "wa s i n accordanc e wit h Rule s

62 7 an d 62 8 o f th e Texa s Rule s o f Civi l Procedure. " (C R 195)

. Th e cour t ordere d

tha t "th e Fina l Judgmen t date d Marc h 8

, 2011

, i s th e on e tru e judgmen t o f thi s

Cour t an d th e Wri t o f Executio n issue d upo n sai d Fina l Judgmen t wa s vali d an d

proper. " (C R 195)

. Keathel y faile d t o see k revie w o f thi s order

. (C R 168-69)

.

Followin g th e appea l o f th e judgmen t issue d b y th e Count y Cour t a t Law

,

No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texas

, th e 12 t h Cour t o f Appeal s issue d a mandat e

affirmin g th e tria l court' s judgmen t an d awar d o f $70,000.0 0 i n attorney' s fee s t o

Baker

. (C R 110)

. Include d i n th e mandat e wa s a suggestio n o f remittitu r tha t th e

4appellat e attorney' s fee s awarde d t o Bake r b e reduce d fro m $25,000.0 0 t o

$8,000.00

. (C R 110)

. Th e Cour t pointe d ou t tha t th e "Orde r Vacatin g Fina l

Judgmen t Erroneousl y Entere d Apri l 12

, 2011 " state s tha t th e Marc h 8 t h judgmen t

"correctl y reflect s th e judgmen t o f thi s court. " (C R 116)

. Th e Cour t stated

, "[w] e

conclud e tha t th e languag e use d i n th e Apri l 1 8 order

, togethe r wit h th e court' s ac t

o f physicall y attachin g th e Marc h 8 judgmen t t o th e orde r an d referencin g th e

attachment

, ha s th e sam e effec t a s us e o f th e wor d 'reinstate ' i n th e ne w order

.

(C R 116)

.

O n Octobe r 21

, 2013

, Bake r file d a Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y

Injunction

. (C R 102)

. Keathle y subsequentl y file d a Motio n t o Modif y Injunctio n

an d Releas e Fund s an d a Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f

Execution

. (C R 154

, 205)

. A t a hearin g o n Decembe r 19

, 2013

, th e tria l cour t

deferre d rulin g o n th e variou s motion s an d requeste d additiona l briefin g o n th e

issu e o f whethe r garnishmen t o r executio n i s th e "correc t vehicle " t o obtai n fund s

fro m th e registr y o f th e court

. (R R 2:24

, line s 14-21)

. A t th e subsequen t hearin g o n

Februar y 28

, 2014

, th e tria l cour t foun d tha t th e wri t o f executio n wa s th e "correc t

vehicle. " (R R 3:4

, line s 18-23)

. O n Marc h 25

, 2014

, th e cour t signe d th e Orde r o n

Corbit t Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s

Motio n t o Modif

y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r

Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Execution

. (C R 305)

. I n th e order

, th e tria l

5cour t grante d Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, an d ordere d th e

distributio n o f th e registr y fund s followin g thirt y day s fro m th e dat e o f th e order

.

(C R 305-06)

. Th e cour t als o denie d Keathley' s Motio n t o Modif y Injunctio n an d

Releas e Fund s an d a Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f

Execution

. (C R 306)

.

O n Apri l 25

, 2014

, Keathle y file d hi s Reques t fo r Finding s o f Fac t an d

Conclusion s o f Law

, Motio n fo r Reconsideratio n and/o r Motio n fo r Ne w Tria l an d

Notic e o f Appeal

. (C R 308)

. Keathle y the n file d a voluntar y petitio n fo r

bankruptc y i n th e U.S

. Bankruptc y Cour t fo r th e Easter n Distric t o f Texa s an d a

Notic e o f Bankruptc y wit h th e tria l court

. (C R 314)

. O n Septembe r 16

, 2014

, th e

U.S

. Bankruptc y Cour t fo r th e Easter n Distric t o f Texa s issue d a n orde r grantin g

Baker' s Motio n fo r Relie f fro m Automati c Sta y wit h respec t t o th e monie s hel d i n

th e registr y o f th e 62 n d Judicia l Distric t Cour t o f Frankli n County

, Texas

. (C R 319

-

20)

. O n Novembe r 3

, 2014

, th e tria l cour t denie d Keathley' s Reques t fo r Finding s

o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f Law

, Motio n fo r Reconsideratio n and/o r Motio n fo r

Ne w Tria l an d Notic e o f Appeal

. (C R 351)

. Th e cour t foun d tha t th e Reques t fo r

Finding s o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f La w wer e no t file d timely

. (R R 4:9

, line s 1

-

23)

.

6SUMMAR Y O F TH E ARGUMEN T

Appellan t ha s sough t a revie w o f th e tria l court' s Orde r o n Corbit t Baker' s

Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s Motio n t o Modif y

Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r Summar y

Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n issue d o n Marc h 25

, 2014

. Th e standar d o f

revie w o f a tria l court' s orde r dissolvin g o r modifyin g a temporar y injunctio n i s

abus e o f discretion

. However

, non e o f th e argument s o r evidenc e raise d i n

Appellant' s Brie f demonstrate s tha t th e tria l cour t acte d arbitraril y an d

unreasonabl y o r misapplie d th e la w t o th e fact s o f th e case

.

Wit h th e exceptio n o f th e thir d poin t o f erro r raise d b y Appellant

, al l o f

Appellant' s argument s hav e previousl y bee n adjudicate d an d an y attempte d

relitigatio n o f thes e claim s i s preclude d a s a matte r o f la w unde r th e doctrin e o f re s

judicata

. Fo r thi s reason

, th e tria l cour t correctl y refuse d t o entertai n suc h

arguments

. I n th e alternative

, th e evidenc e an d authorit y cite d t o an d relie d o n b y

th e tria l cour t i n it s determinatio n o f th e Appellee' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y

Injunctio n an d Appellant' s Motio n t o Modif y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d

Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n support s th e court' s

findings

. A s t o th e thir d poin t o f error

, Appellan t fail s t o cit e evidenc e t o suppor t

hi s assertio n concernin g an y attemp t t o lev y agains t propert y tha t wa s no t th e

judgmen t debtor's

. Rather

, th e recor d clearl y show s tha t lev y o f th e wri t o f

7executio n wa s mad e solel y agains t th e Appellant' s propert y hel d i n th e registr y o f

th e court

.

Takin g al l evidenc e an d drawin g al l inference s i n favo r o f th e tria l court' s

ruling

, i t i s clea r tha t ther e wa s n o abus e o f discretio n b y th e tria l court

. Th e Orde r

o n Corbit t Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s

Motio n t o Modif

y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r

Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n mus t therefor e b e affirmed

.

8ARGUMEN T

Appellant' s Brie f fail s t o addres s th e applicabl e standar d o f revie w fo r

purpose s o f thi s appeal

. A s indicated

, thi s appea l i s fro m th e tria l court' s Orde r o n

Corbit t Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s

Motio n t o Modif

y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r

Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Execution

. A n orde r grantin g o r denyin g a

temporar y injunctio n i s reviewe d unde r a n abus e o f discretio n standard

. Davis v

.

Huey, 571 S.W.2 d 859

, 861-6 2 (Tex

. 1978)

. Likewise

, court s appl y th e sam e

standar d o f revie w whe n reviewin g order s o n motion s t o dissolv e o r modif y a

temporar y injunction

. Murphy v

. McDaniel, 2 0 S.W.3 d 873

, 87 7 (Tex

. App

.

Dalla s 2000

, n o pet.) ; Texas State Optical v

. Wiggins, 882 S.W.2 d 8

, 1 2 (Tex

.

App.—Housto n [1 s t Dist. ] 1994

, n o writ) ; Tober v

. Turner of Tex., Inc., 668

S.W.2 d 831

, 83 4 (Tex

. App.—Austi n 1984

, n o writ)

.

Unde r a n abus e o f discretio n standar d o f review

, th e appellat e cour t mus t

uphol d th e tria l court' s judgmen t unles s i t determine s tha t th e tria l cour t acte d

arbitraril y an d unreasonabl y o r withou t referenc e t o guidin g rule s o r principles

.

Downe r v

. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2 d 238

, 241-4 2 (Tex

. 1985) ;

Monroe v

. Grider

, 88 4 S.W.2 d 811

, 81 6 (Tex

. App

. Dalla s 1994

, wri t denied)

.

Th e appellat e cour t i s preclude d fro m substitutin g it s ow n judgmen t fo r tha t o f th e

tria l court

, bu t mus t revie w an y conflictin g evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o

9th e tria l court' s rulin g an d dra w al l reasonabl e inference s i n favo r o f th e tria l

court' s judgment

. Schlager v

. Clements, 93 9 S.W.2 d 183

, 19 1 (Tex

. App

.

Housto n [14t h Dist. ] 1996

, wri t denied)

. Th e fac t tha t th e appellat e judg e ma y

decid e a n issu e differentl y tha n th e tria l judg e doe s no t demonstrat e a n abus e o f

discretion

. Downer

, 70 1 S.W.2 d a t 242

. Further

, i t ha s bee n specificall y hel d tha t

"a n abus e o f discretio n doe s no t exis t wher e th e tria l cour t base s it s decisio n o n

conflictin g evidence. " Davis, 57 1 S.W.2 d a t 862

.

A

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. One

, whic h argue s tha t th e

tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e $30,00 0 fro m

registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n th e wri t o f executio n levie d

unde r Corbit t Baker' s judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y becaus e a

wri t o f executio n i s no t a prope r lega l remed y fo r enforcemen t o f a

judgmen t agains t a judgmen t debtor' s fund s i n th e possessio n o f a

thir d part y an d becaus e th e fund s wer e i n lega l custod y o f th e Cour t

Th e firs t poin t o f erro r raise d i n th e Appellant' s Brie f concern s th e abilit y o f

a judgmen t credito r t o emplo y a wri t o f executio n i n orde r t o enforc e a judgmen t

agains t propert y i n th e possessio n o f a thir d party

, whic h i n thi s instanc e involve d

fund s whic h ha d previousl y bee n deposite d i n th e registr y o f th e court

. Tex

. R

. Civ

.

P

. 62 1 state s tha t "[t]h e judgment s o f th e district

, county

, an d justic e court s shal l b e

enforce d b y executio n o r othe r appropriat e process. " Despit e th e argument s raise d

b y Appellant

, Keathle y cite s n o authorit y t o suppor t th e assertio n h e i s attemptin g

t o raise

. Rather

, a s Rul e 62 1 clearl y states

, a wri t o f execution

, suc h a s th e on e

employe d b y Baker

, i s on e mean s b y whic h a judgmen t credito r ma y enforc e hi s

1 0judgment

. A s such

, th e tria l cour t di d no t abus e it s discretio n i n permittin g suc h

enforcemen t i n thi s instance

.

I n eac h o f th e motions

, response s an d brief s file d befor e th e tria l court

,

Keathle y raise d severa l argument s challengin g th e effectivenes s o f th e wri t o f

executio n an d th e manne r i n whic h i t wa s levied

. Bake r argue d tha t eac h o f thes e

argument s wa s barre d unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

. Re s judicat a prevent s

partie s fro m relitigatin g claim s o r defense s tha t ar e finall y adjudicate d an d eve n

one s tha t coul d hav e bee n litigate d i n a n earlie r sui t bu t wer e not

. Ingersoll— Ran d

Co. v

. Valero Energy Corp., 99 7 S.W.2 d 203

, 206-0 7 (Tex

. 1999)

. "Th e doctrin e i s

intende d t o preven t cause s o f actio n fro m bein g split

, thu s curbin g vexatiou s

litigatio n an d promotin g judicia l economy. " Id

. a t 207

. Unde r thi s doctrine

, a part y

i s preclude d fro m litigatin g a clai m i n a pendin g actio n if : (1 ) i n a previou s action

,

a cour t o f competen t jurisdictio n rendere d a fina l determinatio n o n th e merit s o f a

claim ; (2 ) th e partie s tha t litigate d th e prio r clai m ar e identica l t o o r i n privit y wit h

th e partie s litigatin g th e pendin g claim ; an d (3 ) th e pendin g clai m (a ) i s identica l t o

th e prio r clai m o r (b ) arise s ou t o f th e sam e subjec t matte r a s th e prio r clai m an d

coul d hav e bee n litigate d i n th e previou s action

. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 31 5

S.W.3 d 860

, 86 2 (Tex

. 2010) ; Amstadt v

. U.S. Brass Corp., 91 9 S.W.2 d 644

, 65 2

(Tex

. 1996)

.

I n hi s Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f Executio n file d i n th e Count y Cour t a t La w

1 1No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texas

, Keathle y raise d severa l arguments

, includin g th e

following :

"Lev y o f th e Wri t o n Elle n Jaggers

, Distric t Cler k o f Frankli n County

, Texa s

fo r fund s hel d i n th e Clerk' s registr y wa s no t a lev y o f a wri t o f executio n bu t

wa s a n attempte d garnishmen t o f fund s o f a judgmen t debto r i n th e possessio n

o f a thir d party

. Th e Wri t use d b y Defendan t t o reac h fund s i n th e hand s o f th e

Distric t Cler k faile d t o compl y wit h th e requirement s fo r a wri t o f garnishmen t

state d unde r Sectio n 63.00 1 t o 63.008

, Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e an d i s

voi d a s a matte r o f law. " (C R 179-80)

.

Followin g a hearin g o n same

, th e Smit h Count y cour t denie d Keathley' s Motio n t o

Quash

. Th e cour t hel d tha t "th e on e an d onl y fina l judgmen t i n thi s matte r i s tha t

Fina l Judgmen t date d Marc h 8

, 2011, " an d th e wri t o f executio n "wa s i n

accordanc e wit h Rule s 62 7 an d 62 8 o f th e Texa s Rule s o f Civi l Procedure. " (C R

195)

. Th e orde r state d furthe r tha t "th e Fina l Judgmen t date d Marc h 8

, 2011

, i s th e

on e tru e judgmen t o f thi s Cour t an d th e Wri t o f Executio n issue d upo n sai d Fina l

Judgmen t wa s vali d an d proper. " (C R 195)

. Keathle y mad e n o attemp t t o appea l

th e finding s o f th e Smit h Count y court

.

Appelle e thu s contend s tha t th e argumen t raise d i n Keathley' s firs t poin t o f

erro r i s barre d unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

. Clearl y on e o f th e base s relie d o n

i n Keathley' s Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f Executio n relate d t o whethe r o r no t th e

executio n wa s a n imprope r attemp t a t garnishmen t o f th e fund s i n th e registr y o f

th e court

. Th e partie s t o tha t proceedin g ar e identica l t o o r i n privit y wit h th e

partie s befor e th e tria l court

. Further

, thes e sam e claim s o r defense s ar e identica l

1 2t o thos e identifie d above

, o r aris e fro m th e sam e subjec t matte r an d coul d hav e

bee n raise d therein

. Se e Travelers, 31 5 S.W.3 d a t 862

.

Eve n i f i t i s determine d tha t thi s clai m i s no t barre d a s a matte r o f law

, th e

argument s raise d regardin g thi s poin t o f erro r mus t stil l b e rejected

. Appelle e

woul d remin d th e Cour t tha t i n th e Orde r Grantin g Temporar y Injunction

, th e tria l

cour t ordere d tha t Keathley' s TR O shoul d b e extende d statin g tha t i t wa s

"presente d wit h notic e o f issuanc e o f a wri t o f supersedea s an d postin g o f

supersedea s bon d i n th e underlyin g lawsui t fro m whic h th e wri t o f executio n

involve d i n thi s cas e wa s issued. " (C R 91)

. A s Keathle y ha d file d hi s wri t o f

supersedea s an d poste d a supersedea s bond

, enforcemen t o f th e Smit h Count y fina l

judgmen t wa s suspended

. Se e Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 24.1

. Th e onl y legitimat e purpos e o f

a temporar y injunctio n i s t o preserv e th e statu s qu o pendin g trial

. Reede r v

.

Intercontinental Plastics Mfg. Co., 58 1 S.W.2 d 497

, 49 9 (Tex

. Civ

. App—Dalla s

1979

, n o writ)

. Th e tria l court' s Orde r Grantin g Temporar y Injunctio n preserve d

th e statu s qu o b y suspendin g th e lev y an d distributio n o f th e subjec t fund s pendin g

th e outcom e o f th e appea l o f th e Smit h Count y judgment

.

O n Augus t 2

, 2013

, th e 12 t h Cour t o f Appeal s issue d a mandat e o n th e

appea l raise d b y Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y affirmin g th e awar d o f

attorney' s fee s t o Bake r whic h forme d th e basi s o f th e wri t o f execution

. (C R 110)

.

Followin g th e issuanc e o f th e mandate

, Bake r file d hi s Motio n t o Dissolv e

1 3Temporar y Injunctio n citin g th e mandat e an d th e fac t tha t Keathley' s abilit y t o

appea l sai d judgmen t ha d bee n exhausted

. (C R 102-25)

. Th e purpos e o f a motio n

t o dissolv e a temporar y injunctio n i s t o provid e a mean s a part y ma y sho w tha t

circumstance s hav e change d whic h compe l th e dissolutio n o f th e injunction

. Tober

,

66 8 S.W.2 d a t 836

. I n suc h motion

, th e movin g part y i s require d t o sho w tha t

circumstance s hav e change d sinc e th e issuanc e o f th e temporar y injunctio n suc h

tha t th e orde r shoul d no w b e dissolved

. Id

. Upo n a showin g o f "change d

circumstances " b y th e movant

, th e tria l cour t i s authorize d t o dissolv e th e

temporar y injunction

. Id.

A s th e basi s cite d fo r extendin g th e temporar y restrainin g orde r int o a

temporar y injunctio n wa s th e filin g o f th e wri t o f supersedea s an d th e postin g o f a

supersedea s bond

, an d becaus e th e appea l o f sai d judgmen t wa s no w final

, Bake r

argue d "change d circumstances. " (C R 102-25)

. H e therefor e sough t dissolutio n o f

th e temporar y injunctio n s o tha t th e lev y o f th e wri t o f executio n o n th e fund s hel d

i n th e registr y o f th e cour t migh t proceed

. (C R 102-25)

.

A t th e hearin g o n Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, th e

questio n o f "change d circumstances " wa s no t addressed

. Rather

, th e tria l cour t

focuse d th e hearin g o n th e questio n o f whethe r a wri t o f executio n wa s th e prope r

vehicl e b y whic h th e fund s hel d i n th e court' s registr y migh t b e reache d b y a

judgmen t creditor

. (R R 2:11

, line s 10-12)

. Keathle y argue d tha t onl y a wri t o f

1 4garnishmen t ma y b e employe d b y a judgmen t credito r i n orde r t o obtai n propert y

i n th e possessio n o f a thir d party

. Originally

, i t appear s tha t th e tria l cour t agree d

wit h th e Appellant' s argument s whe n h e likene d i t t o " a ban k holdin g funds. " (R R

2:11

, line s 10-12)

. However

, rathe r tha n rulin g o n th e issu e a t thi s hearing

, th e tria l

cour t aske d th e partie s t o brie f thi s issu e an d rese t th e hearin g fo r a late r date

. (R R

2:24

, line s 14-21)

. Followin g receip t o f suc h briefing

, th e tria l cour t state d a t th e

subsequen t hearing : " I previousl y sai d o n th e recor d I ha d som e concer n whethe r

o r no t wri t o f executio n wa s th e righ t wa y t o ge t t o thes e funds

, bu t I' m satisfie d

tha t thi s i s th e correc t vehicl e t o ge t here. " (R R 3:4

, line s 19-24)

.

Appellant' s Brie f fail s t o demonstrat e tha t th e tria l cour t abuse d it s

discretio n i n it s finding s o n th e effectivenes s o f th e wri t o f execution

. A s indicate d

i n th e record

, th e tria l cour t wa s ultimatel y convince d tha t a wri t o f executio n wa s

th e "correc t vehicle " afte r it s revie w o f th e parties ' briefing

. (R R 3:4

, line s 19-24)

.

I n hi s brie f t o th e tria l court

, Appelle e cite d Gonzales v

. Daniel, 85 4 S.W.2 d 25 3

(Tex

. App.—Corpu s Christ i 1993

, orig

. proceeding ) t o suppor t th e argument

. I n

Gonzales, th e fund s subjec t t o enforcemen t wer e place d i n th e registr y o f th e cour t

fro m a garnishmen t judgmen t obtaine d agains t th e debtor' s ban k account

. Id

. a t

254

. However

, i n seekin g t o collec t th e fund s fro m th e registr y o f th e court

, th e

judgmen t credito r employe d a wri t o f executio n rathe r tha n anothe r wri t o f

garnishment

. Id

. Th e Corpu s Christ i cour t hel d tha t "Gonzale s wa s entitle d t o th e

1 5issuanc e o f a wri t o f executio n agains t thi s propert y an d th e distributio n o f th e

fund s t o hi m afte r hi s garnishe d judgmen t becam e fina l unde r th e provision s o f

Rul e 627

, an d tha t th e tria l cour t abuse d it s discretio n b y enterin g a n orde r voidin g

th e distribution. " Id

. a t 257

. Thus

, th e Gonzales opinio n clearl y hold s tha t a wri t o f

executio n ca n b e use d t o collec t fund s hel d i n th e registr y o f th e court

. Moreover

,

th e clea r implicatio n o f bot h Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e §34.00 4 an d §34.00 5 i s

tha t executio n i s a vali d mean s b y whic h a judgmen t credito r ca n secur e propert y

o f th e debto r tha t i s i n th e possessio n o f a thir d party

. See Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

.

Cod e §34.00 4 an d §34.005

.

On e concer n i n Gonzales, whic h Appellan t ha s als o raised

, wa s whethe r

propert y hel d in custodia legis ca n b e subjec t t o an y enforcemen t proceedings

.

Gonzales, 85 4 S.W.2 d a t 256-57

. Ordinarily

, suc h enforcemen t i s preclude d i n

orde r t o preserv e th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t an d avoi d conflict s ofjurisdictio n

betwee n courts

. Id

. However

, th e Gonzales cour t cite s a n exceptio n "whe n th e

cour t enter s a decre e o f distribution

, o r wher e nothin g mor e remain s fo r th e

custodia n t o d o bu t mak e deliver y o f th e propert y o r paymen t o f th e money... " Id

.

a t 257

. Prio r t o th e lev y o f th e wri t o f execution

, th e tria l cour t ha d alread y

execute d a n Agree d Orde r t o Distribut e Funds

. (C R 36)

. A s such

, thes e fund s wer e

alread y "subjec t t o lev y unde r Texa s law " whe n th e wri t wa s levie d b y Constabl e

Green

. Se e Id

.

1 6I n U.S. v

. Powell, 639 F.2 d 22 4 (5 t h Cir

. 1981)

, th e Fift h Circui t cite d Texa s

cas e la w fo r th e sam e proposition : "Whe n th e cour t enter s a decre e o f distribution

,

o r wher e nothin g mor e remain s fo r th e custodia n t o d o bu t mak e deliver y o f th e

propert y o r paymen t o f th e money

, th e reaso n fo r th e doctrin e o f i n custodia legis

i s satisfied

, an d th e propert y become s subjec t t o lev y unde r Texa s law.

. .I t appears

,

therefore

, tha t there must be a writ of execution. Powell, 639 F.2d a t 22 6 (citing

Hardy v

. Construction Systems, Inc., 556 S.W.2 d 84 3 (Tex

. Civ

. App.—Housto n

[14 t h Dist ] 1977

, wri t ref d n.r.e.) ; Challenge Co. v

. Sartin, 260 S.W.31 3 (Tex

. Civ

.

App.—Dalla s 1924

, n o writ ) (Emphasi s added)

.

Appellan t cite s Hardy fo r th e suggestio n tha t a n orde r o f distributio n onl y

become s fina l fo r purpose s o f enforcemen t ofjudgment s whe n th e cour t lose s

subjec t matte r jurisdiction

. However

, thi s i s a misreadin g o f Housto n court' s

holding

. Bot h Gonzales an d Powell (whic h cite s Hardy) specif y tha t thi s exceptio n

applie s whe n eithe r "th e cour t enter s a decre e o f distribution " O R "wher e nothin g

mor e remain s fo r th e custodia n t o d o bu t mak e deliver y o f th e propert y o r paymen t

o f th e money. " Gonzales, 85 4 S.W.2 d a t 257 ; Powell, 639 F.2d a t 226

. I n thi s case

,

th e tria l cour t entere d a n Agree d Orde r t o Distribut e Fund s o n Marc h 25

, 2011

.

(C R 36)

. Thi s alon e wa s sufficien t t o permi t th e judgmen t credito r t o procee d wit h

th e executio n o f thes e registr y fund s onc e th e injunctio n wa s dissolved

.

1 7Cas e la w i s clea r tha t fund s deposite d i n th e registr y o f th e cour t ar e alway s

subjec t t o th e contro l an d orde r o f th e tria l court

, an d th e cour t enjoy s "grea t

latitud e i n dealin g wit h them. " Burn s v

. Bishop, 4 8 S.W.3 d 459

, 46 7 (Tex

. App.

—

Housto n [14 t

h Dist. ] 2001

, n o pet.)

. I n Hardy, th e Housto n Cour t clarifie d tha t th e

purpos e o f i n cutodia legis "i s no t t o protec t th e part y entitle d t o th e property

, bu t

t o preserv e th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t administerin g th e propert y an d preven t

conflict s ofjurisdictio n wit h othe r court. " Hardy, 556 S.W.2 d a t 844

. Therefore

,

Keathley' s relianc e o n th e doctrin e o f i n custodia legis i s misplaced

. I n fact

, th e

Appellant' s counse l himsel f represente d a t th e hearin g tha t th e tria l cour t possesse s

"exclusiv e jurisdictio n ove r contro l o f th e fund s i n you r court, " an d th e cour t

heartil y agreed

. (R R 3:13

, line s 19-23)

. Afte r revie w o f th e motion s an d brief s o f

th e parties

, a s wel l a s th e argument s raise d i n bot h hearings

, th e tria l cour t

exercise d suc h "latitude " i n grantin g Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y

Injunctio n an d orderin g th e fund s t o b e distribute d a s se t fort h therein

. (C R 305

-

06)

. Therefore

, eve n i f th e argument s raise d i n Keathley' s firs t poin t o f erro r ar e

no t barre d unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

, i t i s clea r tha t th e tria l court' s orde r

wa s no t arbitrar y o r give n withou t referenc e t o guidin g rule s o r principles

.

B

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Two

, whic h argue s tha t th e

tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e $30,00 0 fro m

registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n th e wri t o f executio n levie d

unde r Corbit t Baker' s judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y becaus e th e

lev y o n th e Clerk' s fund s faile d t o compl y wit h th e requirement s o f

Rul e 63 7 o f Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. an d Tex

. Prop

. Cod e Sec

. 42.00 3

1 8I n hi s nex t poin t o f error

, Keathle y raise s anothe r clai m tha t wa s previousl y

adjudicate d b y th e Smit h Count y court

. Keathle y argue s tha t Bake r mad e n o

attemp t t o contac t Keathle y s o tha t h e migh t "declar e hi s exemp t propert y an d

designat e nonexemp t propert y agains t whic h Baker' s judgmen t coul d b e enforced

.

However

, i n th e Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f Execution

, Keathle y liste d th e followin g

a s a basi s t o quash :

"Lev y o f th e Wri t o n th e Distric t Cler k o f Frankli n County

, Texa s withou t

firs t levyin g th e Wri t o n Plaintiff s a s judgmen t debtors

, wa s illegal

, a s a

matte r o f la w becaus e i t deprive d th e judgmen t debtor s o f thei r righ t t o

declar e thei r exemp t propert y an d t o designat e an y propert y tha t the y

recognize d a s subjec t t o executio n a s require d b y th e rule s fo r executio n

unde r Rul e 629

, TRC P an d a s provide d b y Articl e 16

, Sectio n 49

, Tex

. Const

. an d Sectio n 42.00 1 an d Sectio n 42.002

, Te x Prop

. Code

. The levy

made under the Writ was done without any notice to the judgment debtors

and in violation of the procedures required by Section 42.003 Tex. Prop.

Code ." (C R 178 ) (Emphasi s added)

.

A s wit h th e argumen t regardin g garnishment

, Appellant' s argumen t tha t Appelle e

faile d t o compl y wit h Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 63 7 an d Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.00 3 i s als o

barre d unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

. See Travelers, 31 5 S.W.3 d a t 862

.

I n hi s brief

, Keathle y attempt s t o preemp t thi s defens e b y assertin g tha t th e

orde r o n th e Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f Executio n ha s "n o bearing " o n thi s issue

.

Accordin g t o Keathley

, th e "manne r i n whic h th e wri t wa s levie d o r enforce d wa s

withi n th e exclusiv e jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court. " However

, ther e i s n o doub t tha t

Appellan t raise d hi s claim s concernin g a n "illegal " lev y t o th e Smit h Count y court

.

1 9Despit e hi s presen t assertions

, i t i s clea r tha t a t th e tim e h e file d hi s Motio n t o Quash

,

Keathle y believe d tha t th e Smit h Count y cour t possesse d th e necessar y jurisdictio n t o

hea r suc h claims

. However

, h e faile d t o appea l thi s orde r an d no w h e i s incapabl e o f

relitigatin g same

. Se e Ingersoll—Rand, 99 7 S.W.2 d a t 206-07

. Th e tria l cour t

agree d an d refuse d t o entertai n Keathley' s argument s sinc e th e Smit h Count y cour t

ha d previousl y ruled

. (R R 2:12

, line s 1-5)

.

Eve n i f thi s argumen t i s no t barre d a s a collatera l attac k o n th e Smit h Count y

court' s order

, th e Appellant' s secon d poin t o f erro r shoul d stil l b e denied

. Keathley' s

poin t o f erro r ignore s th e exception s t o suc h requiremen t fo r notic e a s provide d

unde r thes e sam e rules

. Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 63 7 states :

"Whe n a n executio n i s delivere d t o a n office r h e shal l procee d withou t dela y

t o lev y th e sam e upo n th e propert y o f th e defendan t foun d withi n hi s count y

no t exemp t fro m execution

, unles s otherwis e directe d b y th e plaintiff

, hi s

agen t o r attorney

. Th e office r shal l firs t cal l upo n th e defendant

, if he can be

found, or, if absent, upon his agent within the county, if known, t o poin t

ou t propert y t o b e levie d upon

, an d th e lev y shal l firs t b e mad e upo n th e

propert y designate d b y th e defendant

, o r hi s agent

. I f i n th e opinio n o f th e

office r th e propert y s o designate d wil l no t sel l fo r enoug h t o satisf y th e

executio n an d cost s o f sale

, h e shal l requir e a n additiona l designatio n b y th e

defendant

. I f n o propert y b e thu s designate d b y th e defendant

, th e office r

shal l lev y th e executio n upo n an y propert y o f th e defendan t subjec t t o

execution. " (Emphasi s added)

.

Further

, Tex

. Prop

. Cod e § 42.00 3 states:

"I f th e numbe r o r amoun t o f a typ e o f persona l propert y owne d b y a debto r

exceed s th e exemptio n allowe d b y Sectio n 42.00 2 and the debtor can be

found in the county where the property is located, th e office r makin g a lev y

o n th e propert y shal l as k th e debto r t o designat e th e persona l propert y t o b e

levie d on

. If the debtor cannot be found in the county or the debtor fails to

20make a designation within a reasonable time after the officer's request, the

officer shall make the designation ." Tex

. Prop

. Cod e § 42.003(a ) (Emphasi s

added)

.

A s such

, i f th e judgmen t debto r "canno t b e found " i n th e count y i n whic h th e

executio n i s levied

, i t i s th e office r wh o make s th e designatio n rathe r tha n th e

judgmen t debtor

. B y hi s ow n admission

, i t wa s clea r tha t Keathle y wa s no t a

residen t o f Frankli n County

. (C R 164)

. A s such

, th e fac t tha t Constabl e Gree n di d

no t contac t hi m prio r t o levyin g th e wri t wa s no t wrongful

, bu t rathe r a specifi c

exceptio n t o an y notic e requirement

. A s Appellan t coul d "no t b e found " i n th e

count y prio r t o th e execution

, th e office r properl y levie d th e wri t o f executio n o n th e

onl y propert y o f th e judgmen t debto r locate d i n Frankli n County

.

Further

, th e Cour t wil l recal l tha t th e wri t o f executio n i n thi s instanc e wa s

issue d unde r Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 628

. I n accordanc e wit h thi s Rule

, Appelle e file d a n

affidavi t fo r immediat e issuanc e o f a wri t o f execution

. Considerin g th e concer n fo r

th e propert y bein g remove d fro m Frankli n County

, a s evidence d b y th e Rul e 62 8

affidavit

, th e reques t tha t Constabl e Gree n no t contac t th e Appellan t wa s a matte r o f

prudence

. Th e fac t tha t Keathle y wa s no t a residen t o f Frankli n Count y exacerbate d

th e concer n tha t thes e fund s woul d b e remove d fro m th e count y befor e a lev y coul d

occur

.

Appellan t cite s Collu m v

. DeLoughter

, 53 5 S.W.2 d 39 0 (Tex

. App

.

Texarkan a 1976

, wri t ref d n.r.e.)

, t o argu e tha t wher e th e judgmen t debto r wa s no t

2 1provide d a n opportunit y t o designat e propert y tha t thi s wa s sufficien t t o se t asid e a

sal e unde r execution

. However

, thi s argumen t misstate s th e holdin g i n Collum. I n

fact

, thi s Cour t note d tha t ther e wer e severa l "irregularities, " onl y on e o f whic h

wa s th e failur e t o provid e a n opportunit y t o designat e property

. Id. at 393. Thi s

Cour t hel d tha t "[s]tandin g alone

, non e o f thes e irregularitie s woul d b e sufficien t t o

justif y settin g asid e th e sale

, bu t togethe r wit h a n inadequat e pric e pai d fo r th e

property

, an d th e tria l court' s presume d findin g tha t thes e irregularitie s wer e

calculate d t o an d di d contribut e t o suc h inadequac y o f price

, the y ar e sufficien t t o

avoi d th e sale. " Id

. Thus

, eve n i f a failur e t o permi t a debto r th e opportunit y t o

designat e exemp t propert y wa s a n "irregularity, " thi s b y itsel f i s no t sufficien t t o

se t asid e th e execution

. Fo r thes e reasons

, th e Cour t shoul d disregar d Appellant' s

secon d poin t o f erro r an d affir m th e orde r o f th e tria l court

.

C

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Three

, whic h argue s tha t th e

tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e $30,00 0 fro m

registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n Corbit t Baker' s instructio n

t o th e Constabl e t o lev y th e wri t o f executio n agains t al l o f th e

$41,763.5 0 becaus e Fran k Keathle y di d no t ow n al l o f th e fund s an d

th e lev y wa s wrongfu l a s t o th e othe r partie s wh o di d no t ow n a n

interes t i n th e fund s

I n hi s thir d poin t o f error

, th e Appellan t argue s tha t th e tria l cour t erre d i n

failin g t o conside r th e allege d instructio n t o Constabl e Gree n t o lev y th e entir e

amoun t hel d i n th e registr y o f th e court

. However

, Appellant' s assertio n lack s an y

basi s an d completel y misstate s th e record

. Appelle e woul d remin d th e Cour t tha t

2 2h e wa s no t a part y t o th e underlyin g lawsuit

. I n th e lette r t o Constabl e Green

,

Appellee' s attorne y state s tha t "[o]u r investigatio n indicate s Fran k Keathle y ha s o n

deposi t i n th e registr y o f th e 8 t h Judicia l Distric t Cour t i n Frankli n Count y

approximatel y $41,763.5 0 associate d wit h Caus e No

. 10,07 2 ( a matte r style d J.J

.

Investmen t Company, LTD v

. Frank Keathley) whic h amoun t ma y b e release d i n

th e nea r future. " (C R 40)

. A s shoul d b e apparent

, thi s wa s no t a n instructio n t o th e

constabl e t o lev y agains t a certai n amount

, bu t onl y a n attemp t t o infor m hi m o f th e

informatio n Appelle e ha d obtaine d concernin g th e onl y know n asse t i n th e county

.

(C R 40)

.

A s th e recor d demonstrates

, th e wri t o f executio n wa s issue d fo r th e

collectio n o f "th e good s an d chattels

, land s an d tenement s o f th e sai d Fran k

Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley.

. .th e sai d su m o f Attorney' s Fee s i n th e amoun t o f

$70,000.0 0 fo r service s rendere d throug h th e tria l o f thi s case. " (C R 37)

.

Constabl e Gree n levie d thi s wri t o f executio n upo n "monie s i n Registr y o f Court '

a s specifie d i n hi s return

. (C R 39)

. Clearl y then

, th e lev y wa s mad e solel y agains t

Keathley' s propert y bein g hel d i n th e registr y o f th e court

.

Ther e i s simpl y n o evidenc e presente d b y Appellan t tha t Constabl e Gree n

sough t t o lev y an y propert y othe r tha n Keathley' s $40,000

, o r tha t th e distric t cler k

wa s place d "i n a positio n o f peril " concernin g ownershi p o f thes e funds

. T o th e

contrary

, th e recor d demonstrate s otherwise

. I n th e Orde r Grantin g th e Temporar y

2 3Restrainin g Order

, th e tria l cour t foun d tha t "Constabl e Green

, respondent

, intend s

t o lev y agains t $40,00 0 hel d i n th e Registr y o f th e Cler k o f thi s Cour t tha t ha s bee n

ordere d b y thi s Cour t t o b e pai d t o Fran k Keathle y unde r Orde r fo r Distributio n o f

Funds.

. .an d tha t Distric t Cler k Elle n Jaggers

, responden t intend s t o mak e a

distributio n o f th e $40,00 0 i n fund s hel d i n he r Registr y t o Corbit t Bake r unde r

lev y o f th e Wri t o f Execution. " (C R 64)

. Thus

, whe n th e tria l cour t entere d th e

temporar y restrainin g orde r ther e wa s n o doub t tha t th e onl y propert y subjec t t o

lev y an d distributio n wa s th e $40,00 0 tha t wa s previousl y agree d t o b e distribute d

t o Keathley

.

I n th e closin g paragrap h o f thi s portio n o f th e brief

, Appellan t request s tha t

thi s Cour t "gran t summar y judgmen t i n favo r o f Keathle y o n thi s issue

, declar e th e

attempte d lev y invalid

, direc t th e Distric t Cler k t o releas e fund s t o Keathle y a s

originall y ordere d an d enjoi n Bake r an d Constabl e Gree n a s requested." 1 Appelle e

woul d objec t t o suc h relie f a s i t exceed s th e authorit y o f thi s Cour t a s se t fort h i n

Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 43.2

.

D

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Four

, whic h argue s tha t th e

tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e $30,00 0 fro m

registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n lev y o f th e wri t o f executio n

issue d unde r th e Corbit t Bake r judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y

Thi s argumen t w a s specificall y raise d i n Appellant' s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y

o f Wri t o f Execution

. ( C R 154)

. A s a n orde r denyin g a motio n fo r summar y judgmen t i s no t

appealable

, Appelle e ha s no t responde d t o th e issue s raise d therein

, despit e Appellant' s claim s

fo r relief

, excep t t o th e exten t tha t suc h argument s wer e als o raise d i n respons e t o th e motio n t o

dissolv e th e temporar y injunction

.

2 4becaus e th e judgmen t debtor' s ownershi p interes t i n th e registr y fund s

wa s exemp t fro m executio n unde r Propert y Cod e Sec

. 42.00 1 an d Sec

. 42.00 2

A s wit h th e firs t an d secon d point s o f error

, th e claim s raise d i n Appellant' s fourt h

poin t o f erro r ar e barre d unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

. I n hi s Motio n t o Quas h

Wri t o f Executio n file d befor e th e Count y Cour t a t La w No

. 3 o f Smit h County

,

Texas

, Keathle y cite d th e followin g a s a basi s fo r quashin g th e writ :

"Lev y o f th e Wri t o n th e Distric t Cler k o f Frankli n County

, Texa s withou t

firs t levyin g th e Wri t o n Plaintiff s a s judgmen t debtors

, wa s illegal

, a s a

matte r o f la w becaus e i t deprive d th e judgmen t debtor s o f thei r righ t t o

declar e thei r exemp t propert y an d t o designat e an y propert y tha t the y

recognize d a s subjec t t o executio n a s require d b y th e rule s fo r executio n

unde r Rul e 629

, TRC P an d a s provide d b y Articl e 16

, Sectio n 49

, Tex

. Const

. and Section 42.001 and Section 42.002, Tex Prop. Code. Th e lev y

mad e unde r th e Wri t wa s don e withou t an y notic e t o th e judgmen t debtor s

an d i n violatio n o f th e procedure s require d b y Sectio n 42.00 3 Tex

. Prop

. Code. " (C R 178 ) (Emphasi s added)

.

Appelle e contend s tha t thi s poin t o f erro r i s merel y anothe r attemp t b y th e Appellan t

t o relitigat e th e issu e o f whethe r thes e fund s ar e exempt

. See Ingersoll—Rand, 997

S.W.2 d a t 206-07

.

I n th e alternative

, Bake r woul d argu e tha t thes e fund s wer e no t exemp t unde r

Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.00 1 o r §42.002

. A s th e recor d reflects

, th e subjec t fund s wer e

deposite d i n th e court' s registr y an d subsequentl y ordere d t o b e distribute d pursuan t

t o a mediate d settlemen t agreemen t a s specifie d i n th e Agree d Orde r t o Distribut e

Funds

. (C R 36)

. Appelle e woul d poin t ou t tha t nothin g i n Chapte r 4 2 o f th e Texa s

2 5Propert y Cod e provide s an y exemptio n fro m executio n fo r monie s pai d a s a

settlemen t i n litigation

.

Keathle y ha s mad e th e argumen t tha t thes e fund s ar e preclude d fro m

executio n becaus e the y constitut e unpai d commissions

. I n Campbell v. Stucki, 22 0

S.W.3 d 562

, 566-567

, (Tex

. App.—Tyle r 2007

, n o pet.)

, th e Tyle r Cour t

specificall y addresse d th e issue

. Th e cour t reasone d tha t "wage s fo r persona l

service

. implie s a relationshi p o f maste r an d servant

, o r employe r an d employee

,

an d exclude s compensatio n du e t o a n independen t contracto r a s such. " Id

. a t 566

-

567 ; (citing Brasher v

. Carnation Co., 92 S.W.2 d 573

, 57 5 (Tex

. Civ

. App

.

Austi n 1936

, wri t dism'd))

. Sinc e i t wa s establishe d tha t th e debto r wa s a n

independen t contracto r rathe r tha n a n employee

, th e cour t hel d tha t "hi s

commission s ar e no t 'wage s fo r persona l service ' an d ar e no t exemp t fro m

garnishment. " Id

. a t 567

. I n Ross v

. 3D Tower, Ltd., 824 S.W.2 d 270

, 27 3 (Tex

.

App.—Housto n [14t h Dist. ] 1992

, wri t denied)

, th e 14 t h Cour t o f Appeal s reache d

a simila r conclusio n holdin g tha t a n attorne y i s a n independen t contracto r an d an y

fee s owe d fo r lega l service s whic h ha d bee n performe d wer e no t exemp t unde r th e

Texa s Turnove r Statute

. Keathle y ha s presente d n o evidenc e t o demonstrat e tha t h e

wa s a n employe e rathe r tha n a n independen t contracto r i n th e underlyin g dispute

.

I n fact

, i n th e Appellant' s brie f h e represent s th e underlyin g lawsui t a s a "contrac t

dispute. " Thus

, eve n i f Keathle y correctl y characterize s thes e fund s a s unpai d

2 6commissions

, rathe r tha n settlemen t proceeds

, hi s argumen t tha t thes e payment s

ar e exemp t fail s unde r th e clea r holdin g o f Campbell.

Eve n assuming

, arguendo

, tha t Keathle y i s correc t regardin g th e applicatio n

o f thi s exemption

, h e ha s mischaracterize d th e amoun t tha t woul d b e exemp t unde r

Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.001(a)

, (d)

. Pursuan t t o th e languag e o f §42.001(d)

, th e

exemptio n fo r unpai d commissio n i s limite d t o 25 % o f th e aggregat e amoun t o f

$60,000 ; i.e

. $15,000

. Tex

. Prop

. Cod e §42.001(a)

, (d)

. Eve n i f Keathle y coul d

establis h tha t thes e fund s wer e someho w distinguishabl e fro m thos e i n Campbell,

th e remainin g $25,00 0 woul d stil l b e subjec t t o th e levy

. However

, Appellan t cite s

n o authorit y o r basi s fo r suc h a distinction

. Further

, Keathle y present s n o authorit y

t o suppor t hi s assertio n tha t a n additiona l $15,00 0 o f thes e "unpai d commission s

ar e preclude d unde r th e "famil y exemption, " o r tha t th e $10,00 0 i n attorney' s fees

,

purportedl y assigne d t o hi s attorney

, ar e als o exemp t unde r thi s sectio n o f th e

Propert y Code

. Fo r eac h o f thes e reasons

, thi s poin t o f erro r mus t b e denied. 2

E

. Repl y t o Appellant' s Poin t o f Erro r No

. Four

, whic h argue s tha t th e

tria l cour t erre d i n orderin g th e Cler k t o disburs e $30,00 0 fro m

registr y fund s t o Travi s Clard y base d o n lev y o f th e wri t o f executio n

issue d unde r th e Corbit t Bake r judgmen t agains t Fran k Keathle y a s

entered Marc h 8

, 2011

, becaus e th e judgmen t wa s no t a fina l judgmen t

a s require d b y Rul e 622

, Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. an d becaus e th e wri t wa s

voide d whe n th e judgmen t wa s revoke d b y th e judgmen t entered Apri l

2

Onc e agai n th e Appellan t state s tha t h e i s entitle d t o "summar y judgmen t tha t al l hi s interes t i n

th e registr y fund s w a s an d ar e exemp t unde r th e Propert y Code. " Appelle e woul d agai n objec t t o

suc h relie f a s i t exceed s th e authorit y o f thi s Cour t a s se t fort h i n Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 43.2

.

2 712

, 2011

, reinstate d b y th e Orde r entered Apri l 18

, 2011

, appeale d an d

reforme d an d affirme d b y th e Twelft h Cour t o f Appeal s Opinio n

delivere d Apri l 2

, 201 3 an d Judgmen t date d Apri l 24

, 201 1

Keathley' s fina l poin t o f erro r concern s th e validit y o f th e wri t o f executio n

du e t o th e event s whic h followe d th e issuanc e o f th e Marc h 8

, 201 1 fina l judgment

.

Ye t again

, Keathle y raise d a n argumen t tha t wa s previousl y raise d an d adjudicated

.

I n th e Motio n t o Quas h Wri t o f Execution

, Appellan t cite d th e followin g a s

additiona l base s t o quas h th e writ :

"Upo n entr

y o f th e Fina l Judgmen t date d Apri l 12

, 201 1 i n favo r o f Plaintiff s

an s agains t Defendant

, th e Wri t wa s void

, a s a matte r o f la w sinc e th e Marc h

8

, 201 1 judgmen t unde r whic h i t wa s issue d wa s vacated

. Unde r Rul e 622

, TRC P (Execution)

, issuanc e o f a wri t o f executio n require s a fina l judgment

. Sinc e th e judgmen t unde r whic h th e Wri t wa s issue d wa s vacated

, th e Wri t

wa s no t supporte d b y a judgmen t an d wa s void

, a s a matte r o f law. " (C R 178

-

79 )

"Th e Court' s Apri l 18

, 201 1 entr y o f th e Orde r Vacatin g th e Apri l 12

, 201 1

Fina l Judgmen t an d reinstatin g th e Fina l Judgmen t signe d Marc h 8

, 2011

, di d

no t reinstat e th e Wri t o f Executio n issue d Marc h 30

, 201 1 unde r th e Marc h 8

, 201 1 judgmen t becaus e Rul e 62 2 TRC P require s a wri t o f executio n t o b e

issue d unde r a fina l judgment

. I n thi s case, th e fina l judgmen t coul d onl y hav e

bee n th e on e signe d Apri l 18

, 2011. " (C R 179 )

A s se t fort h above

, th e orde r o n th e Motio n t o Quas h specificall y addresse d thes e

arguments

. Th e Smit h Count y cour t hel d tha t "th e on e an d onl y fina l judgmen t i n

thi s matte r i s th e Fina l Judgmen t date d Marc h 8

, 2011 " an d "th e Fina l Judgmen t

date d Marc h 8

, 2011

, i s th e on e tru e judgmen t o f thi s Cour t an d th e Wri t o f

Executio n issue d upo n sai d Fina l Judgmen t wa s vali d an d proper. " (C R 195)

. Suc h

claim s ar e therefor e barre d a s a matte r o f la w unde r th e doctrin e o f re s judicata

.

2 8Eve n ignorin g th e fac t tha t thes e claim s wer e previousl y adjudicated

, th e

assertion s raise d i n thi s poin t o f erro r lac k an y merit

. Appellan t firs t argue s tha t th e

Marc h 8 t h judgmen t wa s a s a n interlocutor y judgmen t rathe r tha n a fina l judgment

.

Cas e la w i s clea r tha t a judgmen t i s fina l i f i t dispose s o f al l partie s an d claim s i n

th e lawsuit

. Ford v

. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 23 5 S.W.3 d 615

, 61 7 (Tex

. 2007)

.

Further

, ther e i s a presumptio n tha t a judgmen t followin g a tria l o n th e merit s

dispose s o f al l partie s an d claim s an d i s final

. Vaughn v

. Drennon

, 32 4 S.W.3 d

560

, 562-6 3 (Tex

. 2010)

. I t i s presume d the n tha t th e Marc h 8 t h judgmen t wa s

final

. Further

, i t i s clearl y state d i n th e bod y o f th e judgmen t tha t i t "finall y

dispose s o f al l partie s an d claims. " (Appendi x 1)

.

Appellan t furthe r argue s tha t th e wri t wa s voide d whe n th e Smit h Count y

cour t mistakenl y signe d a secon d "fina l judgment " o n Apri l 12

, 2011

. (C R 58)

.

Thi s "judgment " wa s submitte d b y th e Keathley s afte r th e Marc h 8 t h judgmen t ha d

bee n entered

. A s th e Cour t wil l note

, i t completel y reverse d th e finding s o f th e jur y

an d awarde d damage s t o th e Keathley s contrar y t o th e jury' s findings

. (C R 58)

.

However

, a s soo n a s th e Smit h Count y cour t wa s mad e awar e o f thi s error

, th e

judg e signe d th e Orde r Vacatin g Fina l Judgmen t Erroneousl y Entere d Apri l 12

,

2011

. (Appendi x 2)

.

I n it s opinio n followin g th e Keathleys ' appea l o f th e judgment

, th e Tyle r

Cour t pointe d ou t tha t th e "Orde r Vacatin g Fina l Judgmen t Erroneousl y Entere d

2 9Apri l 12

, 2011 " state s tha t th e Marc h 8 t h judgmen t "correctl y reflect s th e judgmen t

o f thi s court. " (C R 116)

. Th e Cour t overrule d Keathley' s issue s o n appea l an d hel d

tha t th e "Apri l 1 8 orde r reinstate d th e Marc h 8 judgment. " (C R 116)

. A s th e Marc h

8 t h fina l judgmen t wa s no t voide d bu t rathe r reinstated

, th e wri t o f executio n base d

o n sai d judgmen t i s no t void

.

Finally

, Keathle y assert s tha t th e judgmen t wa s modifie d b y th e remittitur

. I n

it s Mandate

, th e 12 t h Cour t o f Appeal s affirme d th e tria l court' s judgmen t an d

awar d o f $70,000.0 0 i n attorney' s fee s t o Baker

. (C R 110)

. However

, th e Tyle r

Cour t als o include d a suggestio n o f remittitu r solel y wit h respec t t o th e appellat e

attorney' s fees

. (C R 110 ) Th e Cour t wil l recal l tha t th e Marc h 8 t h judgmen t als o

awarde d appellat e attorney' s fee s t o Bake r contingen t o n th e Keathley' s

unsuccessfu l appea l o f th e judgment

. (Appendi x 1)

. Th e mandat e issue d b y th e 12 t h

Cour t o f Appeal s ordere d a remittitu r reducin g th e amoun t awarde d fo r thes e

appellat e attorney' s fee s fro m $25,000.0 0 t o $8,000.00

. (C R 110)

. A s wa s pointe d

ou t a t th e hearin g o n th e Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, th e remittitu r

affecte d n o par t o f th e fina l judgmen t upo n whic h th e wri t o f executio n wa s based

.

(R R 3:17

, line s 15-21)

.

A s previousl y indicated

, th e wri t o f executio n wa s issue d unde r Tex

. R

. Civ

.

P

. 62 8 an d prio r t o an y appea l o f th e Smit h Count y judgment

. I n fact

, th e wri t clearl y

indicate s tha t i t wa s issue d fo r th e collectio n o f "th e good s an d chattels

, land s an d

3 0tenement s o f th e sai d Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley.

. .th e sai d su m o f

Attorney' s Fee s in the amount of $70,000.00 fo r services rendered through the

trial of this case

.. " (C R 37 ) (Emphasi s added)

. Ther e wa s nothin g i n th e wri t o f

executio n whic h eve n addresse d th e contingen t appellat e attorney' s fee s mad e th e

basi s o f th e remittitur

. Therefore

, th e tria l cour t correctl y rejecte d suc h argument s

an d nothin g raise d i n Appellant' s fina l poin t o f erro r demonstrate s tha t th e cour t

acte d arbitrarily

, unreasonabl y o r withou t referenc e t o guidin g rule s o r principle s i n

s o doing

. Fo r thes e reasons

, th e tria l court' s Orde r o n Corbit t Baker' s Motio n t o

Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s Motio n t o Modif y Injunctio n

an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y

o f Wri t o f Executio n mus t i n al l thing s b e upheld

.

F

. Repl y t o additiona l issue s raise d i n Appellant' s Praye r

I n hi s Prayer

, Keathle y seek s th e reversa l o f no t onl y th e order s respectin g

th e temporar y injunction

, bu t als o th e order s denyin g hi s Motio n fo r Summar y

Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n date d Marc h 25

, 201 1 an d hi s Reques t fo r

Finding s o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f Law

, Motio n fo r Reconsideratio n and/o r

Motio n fo r Ne w Tria l an d Notic e o f Appea l date d Novembe r 3

, 2014

.

Appelle e woul d poin t ou t tha t Keathley' s Reques t fo r Finding s o f Fac t an d

Conclusion s o f La w wa s file d untimely

. Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 29 6 state s tha t suc h reques t

"b e file d withi n twent y day s afte r judgmen t i s signed. " Th e Orde r o n Corbit t

3 1Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s Motio n t o

Modif y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r Summar y

Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n wa s signe d o n Marc h 25

, 2014

. (C R 305)

.

However

, th e Reques t fo r Finding s o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f La w wa s no t file d

unti l Apri l 25

, 2014

. (C R 308)

. A s such

, ther e i s n o basi s fo r reversin g th e tria l

court' s order

.

Whil e th e Motion s fo r Reconsideratio n an d fo r Ne w Tria l wer e timel y file d

unde r Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 329b

, i n neithe r motio n di d Keathle y cit e an y basi s fo r th e

tria l cour t t o reconside r it s orde r o r t o gran t a ne w trial

. Th e motio n fail s t o

establis h "goo d cause " an d fail s t o se t fort h hi s objection s s o the y "ca n b e clearl y

identifie d an d understoo d b y th e court. " Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 320

, 321

. Further

, Tex

. R

.

Civ

. P

. 32 2 specificall y prohibit s genera l objection s suc h a s Keathle y employs

, an d

mandate s tha t sam e "shal l no t b e considere d b y th e court. " Eve n so

, th e standar d o f

revie w o f a rulin g o n suc h motio n i s agai n abus e o f discretion

. Cliff v

. Huggins,

724 S.W.2 d 778

, 778-7 9 (Tex

. 1987)

. Th e Appellant' s Brie f make s n o attemp t t o

demonstrat e tha t th e tria l cour t acte d arbitraril y o r withou t referenc e t o guidin g

rule s o r principle s i n denyin g bot h motions

.

Appellan t als o argue s fo r relie f fro m thi s Cour t fro m th e tria l court' s denia l

o f hi s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment

. However

, th e la w i s clea r that

, wit h fe w

exceptions

, a n orde r denyin g summar y judgmen t i s no t appealable

. Se e Ackermann

3 2v

. Vordenbaum, 403 S.W.2 d 362

, 36 5 (Tex

. 1966)

. Appellant' s Brie f fail s t o mak e

an y showin g tha t summar y judgmen t bein g sough t fel l unde r on e o f thes e

exceptions

, an d therefor e suc h relie f mus t als o b e denied

.

Finally

, Appellan t ask s tha t thi s Cour t ente r a permanen t injunctio n agains t

th e Appellee s t o preclud e enforcemen t o f Baker' s judgmen t agains t him

. However

,

suc h relie f i s no t withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t an d exceed s th e authorit y

specifie d i n Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 43.2

. Fo r suc h reason

, an y suc h relie f mus t als o b e

denied

.

PRAYE R

Appelle e Corbit t Bake r respectfull y pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Cour t woul d

overrul e eac h o f th e Appellant' s point s o f error

, den y th e relie f requeste d i n hi s brief

,

affir m th e tria l court' s Orde r o n Corbit t Baker' s Motio n t o Dissolv e Temporar y

Injunction

, Fran k Keathley' s Motio n t o Modif y Injunctio n an d Releas e Fund s an d

Fran k Keathley' s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen t o n Lev y o f Wri t o f Executio n

execute d o n Marc h 25

, 2014

, an d awar d Appelle e suc h othe r an d furthe r relie f t o

whic h h e ma y b e justl y entitle d t o receive

.

Respectfull y submitted

,

CLARD Y LA W OFFICE S

20 9 E

. Mai n Stree t

Nacogdoches

, Texa s 7596 1

Ph : 936-564-250 0

Fax : 936-564-250 7

3 3By : /s / Jerr y W

. Bake r

TRAVI S P

. CLARD Y

Stat e Ba r No

. 0426802 0

JERR Y W

. BAKE R

Stat e Ba r No

. 2402677 6

ATTORNEY S FO R APPELLEE

, CORBIT T BAKE R

CERTIFICAT E O F COMPLIANC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t thi s documen t wa s produce d o n a compute r an d contain s

8,67 5 words

, a s determine d b y th e compute r software' s word-coun t function

,

excludin g th e section s o f th e documen t liste d i n Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 9.4(i)(1)

.

/s / Jerr y W

. Bake r

JERR Y W

. BAKE R

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n Apri l 15

, 2015

, a tru e an d correc t cop y o f th e

foregoin g documen t ha s bee n serve d b y certifie d mail

, retur n receip t requested

, i n

accordanc e wit h th e Texa s Rule s o f Appellat e Procedure

, o n th e following :

a

. Mr

. Larr y R

. Wright

, P.O

. Bo x 144

, Winnsboro

, Texa s 75494 ; Attorne y

fo r Appellant

.

b

. Mr

. Larr y Blount

, Power s & Blount

, L.L.P.

, P.O

. Bo x 877

, Sulphu r

Springs

, Texa s 75483 ; Attorne y fo r Appelle e J.J. Investments

, Ltd

.

3 4c

. Mr

. Gen e Stump

, P.O

. Bo x 606

, Moun t Vernon

, Texa s 75457 ; Attorne y

fo r Appellee s Elle n Jagger

, Distric t Clerk

, an d Constabl e Ronal d Green

.

/s / Jerr y W

. Bake r

JERR Y W

. BAKE R

3 5Cas e No

. 06-14-00036-C V

I n th e Cour t o f Appeal s

6t h Judicia l Distric t

Texarkana

, Texa s

Fran k Keathley

, Appellant

v

.

J.J

. Investmen t Company

, L.T.D.

, e t al.

, Appellees

APPENDI X

Fina l Judgmen t

Keathley v

. Corbit t Baker, et al., i n th e Count y Cour t a t Law

, No

. 3 o f

Smit h County

, Texas_date d Marc h 8

, 2011

.

Caus e No

. 51,959-B

, Frank Keathley and Melissa

2. Orde r Vacatin g Fina l Judgmen t Erroneousl y Entere d Apri l 12

, 201 1

-

Caus e No

. 51,959-B

, Frank Keathley and Melissa Keathley v

. Corbitt

Baker, et al., i n th e Count y Cour t a t Law

, No

. 3 o f Smit h County

, Texas_date d Apri l 18

, 2011

.

Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 2 4

4 Tex

. R

. App

. P

. 4 3

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 29 6

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 0 6

.

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 1

3 6Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 32 2

Tex

. R

. Civ

. P

. 62 1 9

Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e §34.00 4 10

.

Tex

. Civ

. Prac

. & Rem

. Cod e §34.00 5 11

.

3 7

# Appendi x 1CAUS E NO

. 51,959- 8 

## mimfi-s /urn:?,

COVNTy ^^ATll f FRAN K KEATHLE V an d

MELISS A KEATHLEY

,

Plaintiff s §

§ BY

. § MPi/r r

NO

. 3 §

VS

. §

§

CORBlTr BAKER, CARROLL BOBO

d /b/ a UNITE D COUNTR Y BOB O

REALTY

, an d MOLLI E BOB O tMV a

UNITE D COUNTR Y BOB O REALTY

, §

§

§



### §

SMIT H COUNTY

, TEXA S Defendant s §

FINA L JUDGMEN T

O n Februar y 16,2011

, thi s caus e cam e o n t o b e hear d an d Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a

Keathley

, Plaintiffs

, appeare d i n perso n an d b y attorne y o f recor d an d announce d read y fo r tria l

an d Corijit i Baker

, Carrol ) Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d Molli e Bob o d/b/ a

Unite d Counti y Bob o Realty

, Defendants

, appeare d i n perso n an d b y attorne y o f recor d an d

announce d read y fo r trial

, an d a jur y havin g bee n previousl y demanded

, a jur y consistin g o f si x

qualifie d juror s wa s dul y impanele d an d th e cas e proceede d t o trial

.

A t th e conclusio n o f th e evidence

, th e cour t entere d a directe d verdic t o n behal f o f

Defendant s Corbit t Baker

, Carrol l Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d Molli e Bob o

d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d agains t Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y

fo r Plaintiffs ' claim s o f commo n la w fraud an d statutor y fraud

. Th e cour t the n submitte d th e

remainin g question s o f fac t t o th e jury

. Th e charg e o f th e cour t an d th e verdic t o f th e jur y ar e

incorporate d fo r al l purpose s b y reference

.

Followin g th e jury' s deliberation

, a verdic t o f th e jur y wa s rendere d o n behal f o f

Defendan t Corbit t Bake r an d agains t Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley

. Th e jur y

foun d tha t th e contrac t ha d terminate d an d tha i Plaintiff s wer e no t entitle d t o an y damage s o r

attorneys ' fees

. Further

, th e jur y verdic t awarde d Defendan t Corbit t Bake r attorneys ' fee s fo r

service s rendere d throug h tria l i n th e amoun t o f $70,000.00

. I n th e even t o f a n appea l t o th e cour t

o f appeals

, th e jur y awarde d Defendan t Corbit t Bake r attorneys ' fee s o f $10,000.0 0 and

, i n th e

even t o f a n appea l t o th e Suprem e Court o f Texas

, di e jur y awarde d Defendan t Corbit t Bake r

attorneys ' fee s o f $ 15,000.00

.

I T I S THEREFOR E ORDERED

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D b y th e cour t tha t

Plaintiffs

, Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley

, tak e nothin g i n thei r sui t agains t Defendants

, Corbit t Baker

, Carrol l Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d Molli e Bob o d/b/ a Unite d

Countr y Bob o Realty

.

I T I S FURTHE R ORDERED

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D b y th e cour t tha t

Defendan t Corbit t Bake r shal l recove r from Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y

attorneys ' fee s i n di e amoun t o f $70,000.0 0 fo r service s rendere d throug h th e tria l o f thi s case

. I n

th e even t o f a n appea l b y Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y t o th e cour t o f appeals

, i f th e appea l i s unsuccessful

. Defendan t Corbit t Bake r wil l b e furthe r entitle d t o a n amoun t o f$ 10,000.0 0 a s a reasonabl e attorneys ' fee

. I n th e even t o f a n appea l b y Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y

an d Meliss a Keathle y t o th e Suprem e Cour t o f Texas

, i f th e appea l i s unsuccessful

, Defendan t

Corbit t Bake r wil l b e entitle d t o a n additiona l amoun t o f $15,000,0 0 a s a reasonabl e attorneys '

fee

.

I T I S FURTHE R ORDERED

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D tha t th e tota l amoun t o f

th e judgmen t her e rendere d wil l bea r interes t a t th e rat e o f 5% percen t fro m th e dat e o f judgment

, unti l paid

.

Al l cost s o f cour t spen t o r incurre d b y Defendant s i n thi s caus e ar e adjudge d agains t

Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y i n th e amoun t o f $371.64

.

Al l -writ s an d processe s fo r th e enforcemen t an d collectio n o f thi s judgmen t o r th e cost s

o f cour t ma y issu e a s necessary

.

Al l relie f requeste d i n thi s cas e an d no t expressl y grante d i s denied

. Thi s judgmen t finall y

dispose s o f al l partie s an d claim s an d i s appealable

.

SIGNE D o n thi s da y o f MA R

- ft 2Qffll 1

•

DGBTRESIDIN G

Fina l Judgmen t

- Pag e 2

# Appendi x 2Paaeil' S From:903590169 6 AR?-18-201 1 11:4 1

Ki^EWP/iLLiP S



### cou? m O f

CAUS E NO

. 51,959- B

M i l AP R 1 8 

# m 1 0 3 1

I N TH E COUNT Y 1 WA S

C——-—DEPUT ? FRAN K KEATHLE Y an d

MKLISS A KEATHLEY

, Plaintift s ) (

X B Y

X

VS

. A T LA W # 3 I N AN D FO R ) (

) (

C0RB1T T BAKER

, CARROL L BOB O ) (

<f/b/ a UNITE D COUNTR Y BOB O REALTY

, ) (

an d M0LL1 E BOB O d/b/ a UNITE D

COUNTR Y BOB O REALTY

, Dcfcndaot s ) ( X

SMIT H COUNTY

, TEXA S

ORDE R VACATIN G FINA L lUDGMFN T F.RRONKOIISL Y ENTERE D APRI L 12. 2011



## V'/J

O n thi s 201 1 cam e t o b e considere d b y Ih e Cour t ek e

.da y o X

mistake n signin g iin d entr y n f a sccon d "Fina l Judgment " i n thi s cas e o n o r abou t Apri l 12

, 2011

.

Th e Cour t ha d pxeviousl y entere d a Fina l Judgmen t i n (hi s eas e o n Marc h 8,2011

.

O n th e 12rl i da y o f April

, 2011

, th e Cour l erroneousl y entere d n secon d "Fina l Judgment "

tha t substantiall y differe d fro m th e on e entere d o n Marc h 8,2011.

,

Th e Cour t find s tha t U i s i n ih e inlercs t o f justic e tha t th e Fina l Judgmen t entere d Apri l

12,201 1 b e an d i s hereb y VACATE D it ) it s entirety

.

Th e Fina l Judgmen t entere d b y thi s Cour t o n Marc h 8,20 1 1 (attache d heret o a s Exhibi t

"A" ) coneetl y reflect s th e judgmen t o f thi s Cour t base d upo n th e verdic t o f th e jur y receive d an d

acccpte d b y th e Cour t a t th e conclusio n o f th e trial

.

da y o f

. 2011

. SIGNE D thi s th e

IN GAPR-18-201 1 11:4 2 From : 90359015 % PasesS' S

KAV ? I

— % : i f i-'.'-i,' ! i p s tO'i

- JT Y C!. r ."" : • CAUS E NO

. 51,9S9- B

Kil l

- a /Jijf t ? n

COUNT Y COUR T A T LA W 1 FRAN K KEATHLE Y an a

MELISS A KEATHLEY

, Plai n tiff s i' V § fjLi'UJ Y

NO

. 3 §

VS

. §

§

CORBIT T BAKER

, CARROL L BOB O

<Vb/ a UNITE D COUNTR Y BOB O

REALTY

, an d MOLLI E BOB O d^j/ a

UNITE D COUNTR Y BOB O REALTY

, Defendant s §

§

§

§

§ SMIT H CODNTY

, TEXA S

FINA L JUDGMEN T

O n Februar y 16,2011

, thi s caus e cam c o n t o b e hear d an d Fran k Kcathle y an d Meliss a

Keathley

, Plaintiffs

, appeare d i n perso n an d b y attorne y o f recor d an d announce d read y lo r {ria l

an d Corbit t Baker

, Carrol l Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d Molti c Bob o d/b/ a

Unite d Countr y Bob o Realty

, Defendanh;

, appeare d i n perso n an d b y attorne y o f recor d an d

announce d read y fo r trial

, an d a jur y havin g bee n previousl y demanded

, a jur y consistin g o f si x

qualifie d juror s wa s dul y impanele d an d th e eas e proceede d t o trial

.

A l th e conclusio n o f th e evidence

, th e cour t entere d a directe d verdic t o n behal f o f

Defendant s Corbit t Baker

, Carrol l Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d Molli c Bob o

d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y an d agains t Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a KcaiWe y

fo r Plaintiffs ' claim s o f commo n la w frau d an d statutor y fraud. Th e cour t the n submitte d th e

remainin g question s o f fac t t o th e jury

. Th e charg e o f th e cour t an d th e verdic t o f th e jur y ar e

incorporate d fo r al l purpose s b y reference

.

Followin g th e jury' s deliberation

, a verdic t o f th e jur y wa s rendere d o n behal f o f

Defendan t Corbit t Bake r an d agains t Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley

. Th e jur y

foun d tha i th e contrac t ha d terminate d an d tha t Plaintiff s wer e no t entitle d t o an y damage s o r

attorneys * fees

. Further

, th e jur y verdic t awarde d Defendan t Corbit t Boke r attorneys ' fees fo r

service s rendere d throug h tria l i n th e amoun t o f $70,000.00

. I n th e even t o f a n appea l t o th e cour t

o f appeals

, th e jur y awarde d Defendan t Corbit i Bake r attorneys ' fee s o f $10,000,0 0 and

, i n th e

even t o f a n appea l t o th e Suprem e Cour t o f Texas

, th e jur y awarde d Defendan t Corbit t Bake r

attorneys ' fee s o f $15,000.00

.

I T I S THEREFOR E ORDERF.D

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D b y th e cour t tha t

Plaintiffs

, Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathley

, tak e nothin g i n thei r sui t agains t Defendants

, Corbitt

. Baker

, Carrol l Bob o d/b/ a Unite d Countr y Bob o Realt y andMoIH e Bob o d/b/ a Unite d

Countr y Bob o Realty

.

l i I S FURTHE R ORDERED

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D b y th e cour t tha t

Defendan t Corbit t Bake r shal l recove r fro m Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y

attorneys ' fee s i n th e amoun t o f $70,000.0 0 fo r service s rendere d throug h th e tria l o f thi s case

. I n

th e even t o f a

n appea l b y Plaintiff

s Fran k Kcathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y t o th e cour t o f appeals

, i f th e appea l i s unsuccessful

, Defendan t Corbit t Bake r wil l b e furthe r entitle d t o a n amoun t o f

£ y K i b i +

- ftPase:3' 3 From:903590169 6 RPR-16-201 1 11:4 2

$10,000.0 0 a s a reasonabl e attorneys ' fee

. i n th e even t o f a n appea l b y Plaintiff s F r m k Keathlc y

an d Meliss a Keathle y t o th e Suprem e Cour t o f Texas

, i f th e appea l i s unsuccessful

, Defendan t

Corbit t Bake r wil l b e entitle d t o a n additiona l amoun t o f $15,000.0 0 a s Q reasonab l s attorneys '

fee

.

I T I S FURTHE R ORDERED

, ADJUDGED

, AN D DECREE D tha t th e tot a amoun t o f

th e judgmen t her e rendere d wil l bea r interes t a t th e rat e o f 5 % percen t from th e dat : o f judgment

, unti l paid

.

Ai l cost s o f cour t spen t o r incurre d b y Defendant s i n thi s caus e ar e adjudg e 1 agains t

Plaintiff s Fran k Keathle y an d Meliss a Keathle y i n th e amoun t o f $371.64

.

Al l writ s an d processe s fo r th e enforcemen t an d collectio n o f thi s judgmen t o r th e cost s

o f cour l ma y issu e a s necessary

.

Al l relie f requeste d i n thi s cos e an d no t expressl y grante d i s denied

. Thi s judgmen t finall y

dispose s o f al l partie s an d claim s an d i s appealable

.

SIGNE D o n thi s Jj^da y o f V^Vfri v

. 2 0

DG&pifcsiDIN G

Fiuit f Judgmen t

- Pag e 2

# Appendi x 3Tex. R. Apj). P. Rule 24

Thi s documcn l i s curren l (hroug h Februar y 4

, 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE > SECTION

TWO. APPEALS FROM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Rul e 2 4 Suspensio n o f Enforcemen t o f Judgmen t Pendin g Appea l i n Civi l Cases

.

24. 1 Suspension of Enforcement.

(a ) Methods.

— Unles s th e la w o r thes e rule s provid e otherwise

, a judgmen t debto r ma y supersed e th e judgmen l

by :

(1 ) filin g wit h th e tria l cour t cler k a writte n agreemen t wit h th e judgmen l credito r f o r suspendin g

enforcemen t o f th e judgment ;

(2 ) filing wit h th e tria l cour t cler k a goo d an d sufficien t bond ;

(3 ) makin g a deposi t wit h th e (ria l cour t cler k i n lie u o f a bond ; o r

(4 ) providin g alternat e securit y ordere d b y th e court

.

(b ) Bonds

.

(1 ) A bon d mus t be :

(A ) i n th e amoun t require d b y 24,2 ;

(B ) payabl e l o th e judgmen t creditor ;

(C ) signe d b y th e judgmen l debto r o r th e debtor' s agent ;

(D ) signe d b y a sufficien t suret y o r suretie s a s obligors ; an d

(E ) conditione d a s require d b y ( d)

.

(2 ) T o b e effectiv e a bon d mus t b e approve d b y th e (ria l cour t clerk

. O n motio n o f an y party

, th e tria l cour t

wil l revie w ( h e bond

.

(c ) Deposit in Lieu of Bond.

(1 ) Types of Deposits. -Instea d o f filing a suret y bond

, a part y ma y deposi t wit h th e tria l cour t clerk :

(A ) cash ;

(B ) a cashier' s chec k payabl e t o th e clerk

, draw n o n an y federall y insure d an d federall y o r

slate-chartere d ban k o r savings-and-loa n association ; o r

(C ) wit h leav e o f court

, a negotiabl e obligatio n o f th e federa l governmen t o r o f an y federall y insure d an d

federall y o r state-chartere d ban k o r savings-and-loa n association

.

(2 ) Amount of Deposit. —Th e deposi t mus t b e i n th e amoun t require d b y 24.2

.

(3 ) Clerk's Duties. —Th e cler k mus t promptl y deposi t an y cas h o r a cashier' s chec k i n accordanc e wit h law

.

Th e cler k mus t hol d th e deposi t unti l th e condition s o f liabilit y i n (d ) ar e extinguished

. Th e cler k mus t

the n releas e an y remainin g fund s i n th e deposi t l o th e judgmen l debtor

.

(d ) Conditions of l.iahilily. —Th e suret y o r suretie s o n a bond

, an y deposi t i n lie u o f a bond

, o r an) ' alternat e

securit y ordere d b y th e cour t i s subjec t t o liabilit y fo r al l damage s an d cost s tha i m a y b e awarde d agains t ih c

debto r

- u p l o ih e amoun t o f th e bond

, depo.sii

. o r sccurii y

- if :

( I j Ih c dcblo r doe s no t perfee l a n appea l o r Ih c deblor' s appea l i s dismissed

, an d Ih e debto r doc s no i perfor m

th e tria l comI' s judgmenl ;Pag e 2 o f 4

Tex

. R

. App

. R Rul e 2 4

(2 ) th e debto r doc s no t pcrlbrn i a n advers e jmigrnc m fina l o n appeal : o r

(3 ) lli o judgmen t i s fo r lli c rccovcr y o f ;i n inleres t i n rea l o r persona l properly

, an d Ih e debto r doc s no l pa y

th e credito r th e valu e o f th e properl y inlerest' s ren l o r revenu e durin g th e pendenc y o f th e ;ippea L

(e ) Orders of Trial Court. --Th e tria l cour t ma y mak e an y orde r neces.sru y l o adequatel y protec t Ih e judgmen t

credito r agains t los s o r damag e tha t th e appea l migh t causc

.

(f ) Kffi'ct of Supersedeas.

— linforccmen t o f a judgmen t mus t b e suspetide d i f th e judgmen t i s superseded

.

Hnforccmen l begu n befor e th e judgnie m i s supersede d mus t ceas e whe n th e judgmeii ! i s superseded

. I f

executio n ha s bee n issued

, th e cler k wil l promptl y issu e a wri t o f supersedeas

.

24. 2 Amoinil of Bond, Deposit or Security.

(it ) Type of Judgment.

(1 ) For Rccovcry of Money. --Whe n th e judgmen t i s fo r money

, th e amoun t o f th e bond

, deposit

, o r securit y

mus t equa l th e su m o f compensator y damage s awarde d i n th e judgment

, interes t fo r Ih e estimate d

duratio n o f th e appeal

, an d cost s awarde d i n th e judgment

. Bu t Ih e amoun t mus t no t excee d Ih e lesse r of :

(A ) 5 0 percen t o f th e judgmen t debtor' s cunen t ne t worth : o r

(B ) 2 5 millio n ilollv>rs

.

(2 ) For Recovery of Property. —Whe n th e judgmen t i s fo r th e recover y o f a n interes t i n rea l o r persona l

property

, th e tria l cour t wil l determin e th e typ e o f securit y tha t th e judgmen t debto r mus t post

. Th e

amoun t o f tha t securit y mus t b e a t least :

(A ) th e valu e o f th e propert y interest' s ren l o r revenue

, i f Ih e properl y interes t i s real : o r

(B ) ih e valu e o f th e properl y inleres t o n th e dal e whe n ih e cour t rendere d judgmenl

. i f (h e propert y

interes l i s personal

.

(3 ) Other —Whe n th e jvulgroen t i s fo r somethin g othe r tha n mone y o r a n interes t i n propeity

, th e

tria l cour t mus t se t th e amoun t an d typ e o f securit y tha t th e judgmen t debto r mus t post

. T h e securit y mu< t

adequatel y prolec l th e judgmen l credito r agains t los s o r damag e tha t th e appea l migh t cause

. Bu t th e (ria l

cour t ma y declin e l o permi t Ih e judgmen t t o b e supersede d i f th e judgmen t credito r post s securit y ordere d

b y th e tria l cour t i n a n amoun l an d typ e tha t wil l secur e th e judgmen l debto r agains l an y los s o r damag e

cause d b y th e relie f granle d th e judgmen t credilo r i f a n appellat e cour t determines

, o n fina l disposilion

.

Iha t Iha t relie f wa s improper

.

(4 ) Conservatorship or Custody. —Whe n th e judgmen l involve s th e conservatorshi p o r custod y o f a mino r

o r olhc r perso n unde r lega l disability

. cnl'orccmei H o f Ih e judgmen t wil l no l b e suspended

, wil h o r withou t

securily

. unles s ordere d b y (h e tria l court

. Bu t upo n a prope r showing

. Ih e appellal e cour t ma y suspen d

enforcemen t o f Ih e judgmen t wit h o r wilhou l security

.

(5 ) For a (rovemmenUd Entity. --Whe n a judgmen t i n favo r o f a governmenla l entil y i n it s governmenta l

capacit y i s on e i n whic h th e entit y ha s n o pecuniar y interesl

. Ih e tria l cour t mus t determin e whethe r l o

suspen d enforcement

, wit h o r withou t security

, takin g int o accoun t th e har m iha t i s likel y t o resul t t o th e

judgmen t debto r i f enforcemen t i s no t suspended

, am i th e har m tha t i s likel y l o resul t t o other s i f

enforcemen l i s suspended

. Th e appellat e cour t ma y revie w th e tria l courl' s delenninatio n an d suspen d

enforcemen t o f Ih e judgmenl

. wit h o r withou t securily

. o r refus e t o suspen d th e judgment

, i f securit y i s

required

, recover y i s limite d t o th e governmenta l eniity' s jciua l damage s resultin g fro m suspensio n o f ih e

jtulgmeni

.

(b ) l .esser Ainoinit. Th e tria l cour t mus t lowe r th e amoun t o f securit y require d b v (a ) t o a n amoun t tha t wil l

no t caus e th e judgmen t debto r substantia l economi c har m if

, afte r notic e t o al l partie s an d a hearing

, th e cour t

find s tha i postin g a bond

, deposit

, o r securil y i n ih e amoun t require d b y (a l i s likel y t o caus e ih e judgmen l

debto r subslanlia i economi c harm

.

(c ) Determinatio n o f Ne t Worth

.Pag e 3 o f 4

Tex

. R

. App

. P

. Rul e 2 4

(1 ) Jiidginetil Debtor's Affiilavit Requireil; Contents; Prinm Facie Erulence.

- A judgmen l debto r wh o

provide s a bond

, deposit

, o r securit y unde r (a) ( 1 )(A ) i n a n amoun t base d o n th e debtor' s ne l wort h mus t

simuHaneousl y fil e wit h th e tria l cour t cler k a n affidavi t tha t suue s th e debtor' s ne t wort h an d slate s

complete

, detaile d infonnatio n concernin g th e debtor' s asset s an d liabilitie s fro m whic h ne l wort h ca n b e

ascerliiined

. A n affidavi t tha t meet s thes e re<]iu i emeiit s i s prim a faci e evidenc e o f th e debtor' s ne l wort h

fo r th e purpos e o f esfablishin g th e amoun t o f th e bond

, deposit

, o r securit y require d t o suspen d

enforcemen t o f th e judgment

. A tria l cour t cler k mus t recciv c an d fil e a net-wort h affidavi t tendere d fo r

filin g b y a judgmen l deblor

.

(2 ) Contest; Discovery.

— A judgmen l credito r ma y fil e a eontcs t t o Ih c debtor' s claimc d ne l worth

. Th e

contes t nee d no t b e sw'orn

. Th e credito r ma y conduc t reasonabl e discover y concernin g ili e judgmen t

debtor' s ne l worth

.

(3 ) Hearing; Burden of Proof; Findings; Additional Security. —Th e tria l cour t mus t hea r u judgmen t

creditor' s contes t o f th e judgmen t debtor' s claimc d ne t wort h promptl y afte r an y discover y ha s bee n

compleied

. Th e judgmen t debto r ha s th e burde n o f provin g ne t worth

. T h e tria l cour t mus t issu e a n orde r

tha t stale s Ih e debtor' s ne t wort h an d state s wit h parlicularil y th e factua l basi s fo r tha t determination

. I f

th e tria l cour l order s additiona l o r othe r securit y t o supersed e th e judgmenl

, th e enforeemei u o f th e

judgmen t wil ! b e suspende d fo r Iwent y day s afte r Ih e tria l court' s order

. I f Ih e judgmen t debto r doe s no t

compl y wit h th e orde r withi n tha t period

, th e judgmen t ma y b e enforce d agains t ih e judgmen t deblor

.

-Th e tria l cvau s ma y enjoi n th e jutAgmeri l debto r fro m dissipatin g o r tiansferrin g asset s t o avoi d

satisfaciio n o f th e iudgment

. bu t th e tria l cour t ma y no t mak e an y orde r tha t interfere s wit h th e judgmen t

dehior' s use

, transfer

, conveyance

, o r dissipatio n o f assci s i n th e norma l cours c o f business

.

24. 3 Continuing Trial Court Jurisdiction; Duties of Judgment Debtor.

(a ) Conlwuing Jurisdiction. —Eve n afte r th e tria l court' s plenar y powe r expires

, th e tria l cour l ha s continuin g

jurisdictio n t o d o lli e following :

(1 ) orde r th e amoun f an d typ e o f securit y an d decid e th e sufficienc y o f sureties ; an d

(2 ) i f circumstance s change

, modif y Ih e amoun t o r typ e o f .securit y require d t o continu e th e suspensio n o f

a judgment' s execution

.

(b ) Duties of Judgmenl Debtor. —If

. afte r jurisdictio n attache s i n a n appellat e courl

. th e tria l cour t order s o r

modifie s th e securil y o r decide s th e sufficienc y o f sureties

, th e judgmen t deblo r mus t notif y th e appellat e cour t

o f th e tria l court' s action

.

24. 4 Appellate Review. ( d ) /ly'iiiicfiO H

til ) Motions; Review. A part y m a y see k revie w o f th e tria l court' s rulin g b y motio n tile d i n th e cour l o f appeal s

wit h jurisdictio n o r potentia l jurisdictio n ove r th e appea l fro m Ih e jiidgmen i i n ih e ease

. A part y ma y see k

revie w o f th e cour t o f appeals ' rulin g o n th e motio n b y petitio n fo r wri t o f mandamu s i n ih e Suprem e Courl

.

Th e appellat e cour t ma y review :

(1 ) th e sulhcicne y o r excessivenes s o f th e amoun t o f security

, bu t whe n th e judgmen l i s fo r money

, th e

appellat e cour t mus t no t modif y th e amoun t o f securit y t o excee d th e limit s impose d b y Rul e 24.2(n| ( I) :

(2 ) th e suretie s o n an y bond ;

(3 ) th e typ e o f securily ;

(4 ) Ih c determinatio n vvhcilie r t o permi t suspensio n o f enforcement ; an d

(5 ) th e tria l court' s e\eieis e o f discretio n unde r Rul e 24.3(a)

.

Revie w ma y b e base d bot h o n condition s a s the y exisie d a t ih c tim e th e tria l cour t

signe d a n orde r an d o n change s i n thos e condition s afterward

.

(c ) Temporary Orders. lb ) Grounds of Review.

--Th e appellal e cour l ma y issu e an y temporar y order s necessar y t o preserv e th e parlie sPag e 4 ol " 4

Tex

. R

. A pp

. P

. Rul e 2 4

rights

.

(d ) Action by Appellate Court. —Th e motio n mus t b e hear d a t th e earlies t practicabl e lime

. Th e appellat e con n

ma y requir e tha t th e amoun t o f a bond

, deposit

, o r othe r securit y b e increase d o r decreased

, an d tha i anothe r

bond

, deposit

, o r securit y b e provide d an d approve d b y th e tria l cour t clerk

. T h e appellat e cour t ma y requir e

othe r change s i n th e tria l cour t order

. Th e appellat e cour t ma y reman d t o th e tria l cour t fo r entr y o f finding s

o f fac t o r fo r th e takin g o f evidence

.

(e ) Effect of Ruling.

— I f th e appellat e cour t order s additiona l o r othe r securit y t o supersed e th e judgment

,

enforcemen t wil l b e suspende d fo r 2 0 day s afte r th e appellat e court' s order

. I f th e judgmen t debto r doe s no t

compl y wit h th e orde r withi n tha t period

, th e judgmen t ma y b e enforced

. Whe n an y additiona l bond

, deposit

,

o r securit y ha s bee n filed

, th e tria l cour t cler k mus t notif y th e appellat e court

. Th e postin g o f additiona l

securit y wil l no t releas e (h e previousl y poste d securit y o r affec t an y alternativ e securit y arrangement s tha t th e

judgmen t debto r previousl y mad e unles s specificall y ordere d b y th e appellat e court

.

Histor y

Amende d b y Texa s Suprem e Court

. Misc

. Docke t No

. 08-911 5 an d Texa s Cour t o f Crimina l Appeals

. Misc

. Docke t

No

. 08-103

. Septembe r I

, 2008

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Inc

. a membe r o f (h e LexisNexi s Group

. Al l right s reserved

.

# Appendi x 4Tex. R. App. P. Rule 43

Thi s documen t i s curren t throug h Februar y 4

, 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE > SECTION

TWO. APPEALS FROM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Rul e 4 3 Judgmen t o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s

43. 1 Time.

— Th e cour t o f appeal s shoul d rende r it s judgmen t promptl y afte r submissio n o f a case

.

43. 2 Types of Judgment. —Th e cour t o f appeal s may :

(a ) affir m th e tria l court' s judgmen t i n whol e o r i n part ;

(b ) modif y th e tria l court' s judgmen t an d affir m i t a s modified ;

(c ) revers e th e tria l court' s judgmen t i n whol e o r i n par t an d rende r th e judgmen t tha t th e tria l cour t shoul d hav e

rendered ;

(d ) revers e th e tria l court' s judgmen t an d reman d th e cas e fo r furthe r proceedings ;

(e ) vacat e th e tria l court' s judgmen t an d dismis s th e case ; o r

(f ) dismis s th e appeal

.

43. 3 Rendition Appropriate Unless Remand Necessary. -Whe n reversin g a tria l court' s judgment

, th e cour t mus t

rende r th e judgmen t tha t th e tria l cour t shoul d hav e rendered

, excep t when :

(a ) a reman d i s necessar y fo r furthe r proceedings ; o r

(b ) th e interest s o f justic e requir e a reman d fo r anothe r trial

.

43. 4 Judgment for Costs in Civil Cases. —I n a civi l case

, th e cour t o f appeals ' judgmen t shoul d awar d t o th e

prevailin g part y th e appellat e cost s

- includin g preparatio n cost s fo r th e clerk' s recor d an d th e reporter' s recor d

-

tha t wer e incurre d b y tha t parly

. Bu t th e cour t o f appeal s ma y ta x cost s otherwis e a s require d b y la w o r fo r goo d

cause

.

43. 5 Judgment Against Sureties in Civil Cases. Whe n a cour t o f appeal s affirm s th e tria l cour t judgment

, o r

modifie s tha t judgmen t an d render s judgmen t agains t th e appellant

, th e cour t o f appeal s mus t rende r judgmen t

agains t th e suretie s o n th e appellant' s supersedea s bond

, i f any

, fo r th e performanc e o f th e judgmen t an d fo r an y

cost s taxe d agains t th e appellant

.

43. 6 Other Orders.

- T h e cour t o f appeal s ma y mak e an y othe r appropriat e orde r tha t th e la w an d th e natur e o f th e

cas e require

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Mauhe w Bende r & Company

, Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisNexi s Group

. Al l right s reserved

.

# Appendi x 5Tex. R. Civ. P. 296

Thi s documen t i s curren t throug h Februar y 4

. 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PARTII. RULES

OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 11. Trial of Causes > a

FINDINGS BY COURT

Rul e 29 6 Request s fo r Finding s o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f La w

I n an y cas e trie d i n th e distric t o r count y cour t withou t a jury

, an y part y m a y reques t th e cour t t o stat e i n writin g it s finding s

o f fac t an d conclusion s o f law

. Suc h reques t shal l h e entitle d "Reques t fo r Finding s o f Fac t an d Conclusion s o f Law " an d

shal l b e file d withi n twent y day s afte r judgmen t i s signe d wit h th e cler k o f th e court

, w h o shal l immediatel y cal l suc h

reques t t o th e attentio n o f th e judg e w h o trie d th e case

. Th e part y makin g th e reques t shal l serv e i t o n al l othe r partie s i n

accordanc e wit h Rul e 21a

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisNexi s Group

. Al l right s reserved

.

# Appendi x 6Tex. R. Civ. /'. MO

Thi s docunicn l i s curren l througl i Februar y 4

, 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART II. RULES

OF PRyiCTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION II. Trial of Causes >

TRIALS J. NEW

Rul e 32 0 Motio n an d Actio n o f Cour t Thereo n

N e w trial s m a y b e grante d an d judgmen t se t asid e fo r goo d cause

, o n motio n o r o n th e court' s o w n motio n o n suc h term s

a s th e cour t shal l direct

. N e w trial s m a y b e grante d whe n th e damage s ar e manifestl y to o smal l o r to o large

. Whe n i t appear s

t o th e cour t tha t a ne w tria l shoul d b e grante d o n a poin t o r point s tha t affec t onl y a par t o f th e matter s i n controvers y an d

tha t suc h par t i s clearl y separabl e withou t unfairnes s t o th e parties

, th e cour t m a y gran t a n e w tria l a s t o tha t par t only

,

provide d tha i a separat e tria l o n unliquidate d damage s alon e shal l no t b e ordere d i f liabilit y issue s ar e contested

. Eac h

motio n fo r ne w tria l shal l b e i n writin g an d signe d b y th e part y o r hi s attorney

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

, Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisNexi s Group

. Al l rights reserved

.

# Appendi x 7Tex. R. Civ. P. 321

Thi s documen t i s currcn l throug h Fcbmar y 4

, 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART II. RULES

OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION 11. Trial of Causes > 1. NEW

TRIALS

Rul e 32 1 For m

Eac h poin t relie d upo n i n a motio n fo r n e w tria l o r i n arres t o f judgmen t shal l briefl y refe r t o tha t par t o f th e rulin g o f th e

court

, charg e give n t o th e jury

, o r charg e refused

, admissio n o r rejectio n o f evidence

, o r othe r proceeding s whic h ar c

designate d t o b e complaine d of

. i n suc h a w a y tha t th e objectio n ca n b e clearl y identifie d an d understoo d b y th e court

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisKexi s Group

. Al l rights reserved

.

# Appendi x 8Tex. R. Civ. P. 322

Thi s documen l i s curren t throug h Februar y 4

. 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PARTU. RULES

OF PIIACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS > SECTION II. Trial of Causes > .1. NEW

TRIALS

Rul e 32 2 Generalit y t o B e Avoide d

Ground s o f objection s couche d i n genera l term s

- a s tha t th e cour t erre d i n it s charge

, i n sustainin g o r overrulin g exception s

I n th e pleadings

, an d i n excludin g o r admittin g evidence

, th e verdic t o f th e jur y i s contrar y t o law

. an d th e lik e

- shal l no l

b e considere d b y th e court

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh l © 201 5 b y Mallhc w Bende r & Company

, Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisNexi s Group

. Al l right s reserved

.

# Appendi x 9Tex. R. Civ. P. 621

Thi s documen l i s currcn i throug h Februar y 4

. 201 5

Texas Court Rules > STATE RULES > TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE > PART VI.

RULES RELATING TO ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS > SECTION 3. Executions

Rul e 62 1 Enforcemen t o f Judgmen t

Th e judgment s o f th e district

, county

, an d justic e court s shal l b e enforce d b y executio n o r othe r appropriat e process

. Suc h

executio n o r othe r proces s shal l b e returnabl e i n thirty

, sixty

, o r ninet y day s a s requeste d b y th e plaintiff

, hi s agen t o r

attorney

.

Texa s Rule s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Inc

. a membe r o f th e LexisNcxi s Group

. Al l right s reserved

.

# Appendi x 1 0Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 34.004

Thi s documcn i i s curren l throug h lli c 201 3 3ic i Culle d Sessio n

Texas Statutes and Codes > CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE > TITLE 2. TRIAL.

JUDGMENT. AND APPEAL > SUBTITLE C. JUDGMENTS > CHAPTER 34. EXECUTION ON

JUDGMENTS > SUBCHAPTER A. ISSUANCE AND LEVY OF WRIT

§ 34.004

. Lev y o n Propert y Conveye d t o Thir d Part y

Propert y tha t th e judgmen t debto r ha s sold

, mortgaged

, o r conveye d i n trus t ma y no t b e seize d i n executio n i f th e purchaser

,

mortgagee

, o r truste e point s ou t othe r propert y o f th e debto r i n th e count y tha t i s .sufficien t t o satisf y th e execution

.

Histor y

Enacte d b y Act s 1985

. 69l h Leg,

, ch

, 95 9 (S,B

. 797)

, § 1

. effectiv e Septembe r 1

. 1985

,

LexisNexi s @ Texa s Annotate d .Statute s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Int

. a membe r o f th e LexisNexi s Grou p Al l rights reserved

.

# Appendi x 1 1Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code $ 34.005

Thi s documen t i s curren t throug h th e 201 3 3r d Calle d Sessio n

Texas Statutes and Codes > CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE > TITLE 2. TRIAL.

JUDGMENT. AND APPEAL > SUBTITLE C. JUDGMENTS > CHAPTER 34. EXECUTION ON

JUDGMENTS > SUBCHAPTER A. ISSUANCE AND LEVY OF WRIT

§ 34.005

. Lev y o n Propert y o f Suret y

11 " th e fac e o f a wri t o f executio n o r th e endorsemen t o f th e cler k show s tha t o n e o f th e person s agains t who m i t

i s issue d i s suret y fo r another

, th e office r mus t firs t lev y o n th e principal' s propert y tha t i s subjec t t o executio n an d

i s locatc d i n th e count y i n whic h th e judgmen t i s rendered

.

I f propert y o f th e principa l canno t b e foun d that

, i n th e opinio n o f th e officer

, i s sufficien t t o satisf y th e execution

,

th e office r shal l lev y firs t o n th e principal' s propert y tha t ca n b e foun d an d the n o n a s muc h o f th e propert y o f th e

suret y a s i s necessar y t o satisf y th e execution

. (a )

(b )

Histor y

Enacte d b y Act s 1985

. 69t h Ixg.

. ch

. 9 5 9 (S.B

. 797)

. S I

. effectiv e Septembe r I

. 1985

.

I.cxisNcxi s ® Texa s Annotate d Stalutc s

Copyrigh t © 201 5 b y Matthe w Bende r & Company

. Inc

. a membe r o f th e I.exisNexi s Grou p Al l right s reserved

.