Opinion issued September 1 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 18 - 01002 - CV

——————————— JERALD A. BROWN , Appella nt

V. WELLS FARGO B ANK N . A . , Appell e e On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, T ex as Trial Court Ca se No. 2015 - 61662 - A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jerald A. Brown, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court ’ s November 2, 2018 final judgment in his garnishment suit . Judgment debtors, A nthony R. Sueing, Sr., Frontline R ecov e r y and Consulting, Inc., and Frontli ne2

Recovery and Consulting North, Inc. , 1 have filed a motion to dismiss Brown ’ s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and a motion for sanction s, asserting that the trial court vacated its November 2, 2018 final judgment and B r own ’ s garnishment suit was dismissed after the judgment debtors superseded the judgment in the underlying
case, which is also on appeal in this C ourt. 2 Generally, this Court has civil appellate jurisd i ction ov er final judgments or interlocutory orders sp e c ifically authorized as appealable by s tatute. See T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C ODE A NN . §§ 51.012, 51.014( a) ; Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Although Brown seeks to appeal the trial cou rt ’ s final judgment in Brown ’ s garnishment su i t signed on November 2, 2018 , o n No vember 6, 2018, the tr ial court vacated its November 2 , 2018 fi nal judgment

. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 329b(d) (“The trial court, regardless of whether an appeal has been perfected,

1 “ A post

-

judgment garnishment proceeding is a quasi in rem action brought by a judgment creditor (t he garnishor) against another party (the garnishee) who holds property o r funds belonging to the judgment debtor. ” Barrow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 587 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) ; see generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 661 . Because the ju dgment debtor ’ s property is at sta ke in a garnishment proceeding, the judgment debtor has standing t o p ar ticipate in the proceedin g , including by filing a motion to vacate or dis solve a writ of garnishment

. Id .; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 664a. Here, Brown is t he judgment credito r or garnish or and appellee, Wells Far go Bank N .A. , is the garnishee

. 2 The underlying case is Jerald A. Brown v

. Anthony R. Sueing, Sr., Frontline Recovery and Consulting, Inc., and Frontline Recovery and Consulting North , Inc. , Caus e No. 2015

- 61662, previously pending in the 333rd D istrict C ourt of Harris C o unty , Te xas. On October 22, 2019, the judgment deb tors f iled , in this Court, their notice of appeal of the trial court ’ s August 15, 201 8 final judgment in the underl ying case . T ha t appeal is currently pending in appellate cause no. 01

- 18

- 00939

- CV.3

has plenary power to grant a new trial or t o vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment within thirty days after the judgment is signed.”) . After the trial court vacated its November 2, 2018 final judgment, there was no appealable final judgment or interlocutory order

. See Zapa ta v. Clear Cr e e k Indep. Sch. Dist. , No. 01

- 15

- 00346

- CV, 2015 WL 7737626, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; see also Saenz v. Thorp Petroleum Corp. , No. 04

- 10

- 00837

- CV , 2011 WL 1303802, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Apr. 6, 2011,

no p e t. ) (mem. op.) (although summary

- judgment orders were final and appealable when notice of appeal filed, when trial court subsequently vacate d severance order during its plenary

- power period , summary - judgment orders were no long er final and appealable)

. B r o wn argues that we have jurisdiction over his appeal because hi s notice of appeal encompasses the trial court’s other November 2 , 2018 order , which vacat ed and dissolv ed the writ of garnishment

. But if the judgment debtor s supersede the judgment in the u n d erlying case after a writ of garnishment issues, the trial court may dissolve the writ on the judgment debtors ’ motion. See C antu v. Butron , 905 S.W.2d 718, 719

– 20 (Tex

. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 1995, writ denied) ; see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 24 .1 (f) ; T E X . R. C IV . P . 65 7 . The filing of a supersedeas bond “preserves the status quo of the matters in litigation as they existed before th e issuance of the order or judgment from which an appeal is taken. ” Alpert v. Rile y ,4

274 S. W.3d 27 7 , 297

– 98 (Tex. App.

— H ou ston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) ( internal q uotati on s omitted ))

. Here, the judgment debtors superseded t he August 15, 201 8 final judgment in the underlyi ng case. 3 B ecause the filing of a proper supersedeas bond suspends execution of a judgment, an ap pe al of the dismissal of the enforcement proceeding is not ju sticiable

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 24.1 (f) ; cf. Elliott v. West , Nos. 01

– 09

– 00747

– CV, 01

– 09

– 01084

– CV , 2011 WL 1233484, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] Mar. 31, 2011 , no pet.) ( “ The only issue t o be tried in a garnishment proceeding is who is entitled to the funds involved in the proceeding. ” )

. Thus, even if B rown ’ s notice of appeal encompasses the trial court’s other November 2 , 2018 order , which
vacat ed and dissolv ed the writ of garnishment , n ot hing is presented for review. Accordingly, we grant the judgment debto r s ’ m otion to dismis s the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We den y the judgment debtor s ’ motion for sanctions. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 45 ; Pol i g none v. Bulldog Chemicals, LLC , No. 01

- 16

- 00633

- CV , 2018 WL 4128002, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] August 30, 2018 , n o pet.) (mem. op.) ( “ The

3 To the extent necessary, we take judicial notice of the reco rds filed in the judg ment debtors ’ related appeal. See In re Chaumette , 456 S.W.3d 299, 303 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Di st.] 2014, orig. proceeding); Douglas v. Am. Title Co. , 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).5

decision to grant appellate sanctions is a matter of discretion that an appellate court exercises with pr ud ence and caution and only after careful deliberation

. ” )

.

Jul i e Counti ss Justice Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Landau, and Counti ss.