NUMBER 13-22-00203-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

ROBERTO ESCAMILLA, Appellant,

 v. 

RICARDO CADENA, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 93rd District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Roberto Escamilla appeals the trial court’s granting of a judgment in

garnishment based on a subsisting judgment in favor of appellee Ricardo Cadena. We 

vacate and dismiss. 
2

I. BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2022, Cadena filed an application for writ of garnishment as an 

original action in the 93rd District Court in Hidalgo County, Texas. The application sought 

a writ against TRIBUILDING, LLC, noting Escamilla as the judgment debtor. According to 

the application, the same court granted summary judgment against Escamilla in the 

amount of $315,471, excluding interest and attorney’s fees, in favor of Cadena for breach 

of contract in a separate suit.

1 Cadena sought a writ of garnishment against one-third of 

TRIBUILDING’s assets, claiming that Escamilla owns one-third of the membership in 

TRIBUILDING. Among the assets, Cadena sought garnishment over funds held in various 

bank accounts, accounts receivables, and real property. Escamilla filed a petition in 

intervention, arguing that garnishment of TRIBUILDING’s assets would be improper 

because he did not own interest in TRIBUILDING’s assets by virtue of being a member 

of TRIBUILDING. On April 1, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment in garnishment for 

portions of TRIBUILDING’s assets in favor of Cadena.2 Escamilla appealed the judgment 

in garnishment. 

II. WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

A. Applicable Law

“Garnishment is a statutory proceeding whereby the property, money, or credits of 

1 Escamilla successfully appealed the subsisting summary judgment to this Court, which we 

reversed and remanded. See Escamilla v. Cadena, No. 13-22-00041-CV, 2023 WL 3015390, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 20, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). We take judicial notice of the records 

in the appeal from the underlying summary judgment.

2 Two copies of the judgment in garnishment appear in the clerk’s record, both signed by the trial 

court. One signature is dated April 1, 2022, and the other is dated April 8, 2022.
3

a debtor in the possession of another are applied to the payment of the debt.” Bank One, 

Tex., N.A. v. Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B., 824 S.W.2d 557, 558 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam); see 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 63.001–.008; TEX. R. CIV. P. 658. In this situation, a 

writ of garnishment is available if the plaintiff “has a valid, subsisting judgment.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 63.001(3). It follows, then, that the validity of a judgment in 

garnishment rests upon the validity of the underlying judgment debt. Baca v. Hoover, Bax 

& Shearer, 823 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied); see 

also Cosentino v. Peters, No. 13-10-00445-CV, 2012 WL 2469858, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 28, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[A] garnishment is void 

when the underlying judgment is void.”). Moreover, if the underlying judgment is reversed 

on appeal, the garnishment proceedings become null, and any writs issued have no force 

or authority. Baca, 823 S.W.2d at 738; see also Cosentino, 2012 WL 2469858, at *5.

B. Analysis

The underlying judgment in this proceeding—the summary judgment granted on 

October 26, 2021—was reversed by this Court on April 20, 2023. See Escamilla v. 

Cadena, No. 13-22-00041-CV, 2023 WL 3015390, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg Apr. 20, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The deadlines for Cadena to file a motion 

for rehearing or a petition for review have passed and Cadena did not file either. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 49.1 (permitting a motion for rehearing within fifteen days of the judgment or 

order); id. 49.9 (permitting a fifteen-day extension on time to file a motion for rehearing); 

id. 53.7(a), (f) (permitting a petition for review within forty-five days of the judgment and a 

fifteen-day extension for time to file petition for review). Thus, Cadena no longer has a 
4

valid, subsisting judgment to support a writ of garnishment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 63.001(3); Baca, 823 S.W.2d at 738. As such, the judgment in garnishment 

is now void. See Baca, 823 S.W.2d at 738; see also Cosentino, 2012 WL 2469858, at *5. 

“[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void 

orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or 

judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that 

determination.” Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). 

Accordingly, we declare the judgment void. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

Without reaching the merits of appellant’s issues, we vacate the judgment and 

dismiss the appeal. 

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

6th day of July, 2023.