DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS – Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

EL CAMPO VENTURES, LLC, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

vs. § Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-560-RP

 § 

STRATTON SECURITIES, INC., § 

STRATTON OILFIELD SYSTEMS § 

TEXAS, LLC, DANIEL STRATTON, § 

AND SHANNON STRATTON, § 

 § 

Defendants. § 

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO 

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS

Defendant Stratton Securities, Inc., (“Defendant”) submits this Opposition and Brief in 

Support Thereof to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Turnover of Sales Proceeds. 

I. 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring Defendant to turn over sales proceeds 

received by Defendant from the sale of real property. Plaintiff’s motion is moot because all 

amounts due under the Final Amended Judgment entered by this Court on August 23, 2022 have 

been paid in full. Further, Defendant was not prohibited from selling the property. Plaintiff’s 

Motion should be denied. 

II. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court entered its Final Amended Judgment on August 23, 2022. Defendant 

subsequently appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 154 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS – Page 2

 

On February 21, 2023, Defendant entered into a contract to sell the real property located at 

909 Munson Road, Carrizo Springs, Texas 78834 (the “Property”) to Target Logistics (“Target”) 

for $500,000. Exhibit A-1 (Doc. 152-1) to Unopposed Motion to Intervene filed by Target 

Logistics, LLC (“Motion to Intervene”). Stratton Oilfield Services entered into a contract to sell 

the buildings and personal property located at 909 Munson Road, Carrizo Springs, Texas 78834 

to Target for $4,500,000. Exhibit A-1 (Doc 152-1), Motion to Intervene.

On February 28, 2023, Stewart Title issued a title commitment reflecting that no abstract 

of judgment related to the Final Amended Judgment had been filed in the real property records of 

Dimmitt County, Texas where the Property is located. Exhibit A-2 (Doc 152-2), Motion to 

Intervene.

On March 6, 2023, the Court entered an Order for Writ of Execution and Sale of Property, 

ordering that a writ of execution be issued and the Property sold. 

On March 31, 2023, Stewart Title issued an updated title commitment reflecting that no 

abstract of judgment related to the Final Amended Judgment had been filed in the real property 

records of Dimmitt County, Texas. Exhibit A-4 (Doc 152-4), Motion to Intervene.

On March 31, 2023, Defendant signed a special warranty deed conveying the Property to 

Target Logistics. Exhibit A-7 (Doc 152-7), Motion to Intervene. Stewart Title issued a title policy 

to Target Logistics reflecting that there were no liens against the Property conveyed by Defendant. 

Defendant was served with a writ of execution on May 3, 2023. The writ was served on 

Target Logistics at the Property on May 9, 2023. 

On May 15, 2023, Defendant wired the full amount due under the Final Amended 

Judgment to Plaintiff’s counsel’s IOLTA account. Exhibit A. The amount wired was the amount 

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 154 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS – Page 3

calculated by Plaintiff’s counsel. Exhibit A. All amounts due under the Final Amended Judgment 

have been paid. Defendant subsequently dismissed its appeal of the Final Amended Judgment and 

the Fifth Circuit issued its mandate on May 16, 2023. 

III.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Plaintiff’s Motion is Moot.

All amounts due under the Final Amended Judgment have been paid in full. See Exhibit 

A. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore moot and should be denied. 

B. Defendant was not Prohibited from Selling the Property.

Plaintiff argues that the Order for Writ of Execution and Sale of Property prevented 

Defendant from selling the property. Nothing in the Order or Texas law prohibited Defendant 

from selling the property. Rule 69 provides that a money judgment is enforced by a writ of 

execution. FRCP 69(a)(1). Under Texas law, "[t]he levy of a writ of execution perfects the 

judgment creditor's judicial lien on that property and establishes the lien's priority among 

competing claims[.]" Brendel v. Meyrowitz, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1928-D, at *3-4 (N.D. Tex. 

Mar. 8, 2018) citing 9 William V. Dorsaneo III, Texas Litigation Guide § 132.03 (2018) 

(citing Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Engelke, 790 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex. App. 1990, no writ)). At 

the time of the sale of the Property, the writ had not been served and the Property had not been 

levied on. 

Plaintiff states that Defendant knew an abstract of judgment had been issued on October 5, 

2022. However, the mere issuance of an abstract of judgment does not perfect a judgment lien. 

The abstract must be recorded and indexed in the county where real property is located before it 

constitutes a judgment lien. Tex. Prop. Code §52.001. According to the title commitments and 

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 154 Filed 05/25/23 Page 3 of 5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS – Page 4 

title policy issued by Stewart Title, the abstract of judgment had not been recorded in Dimmit 

County, Texas. 

Plaintiff states that Stratton did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Execution. No 

supersedeas bond had been posted by Defendant. Defendant therefore had no basis to object to 

the Motion. Plaintiff argues that Defendant was obligated to notify the Court that the Property 

was under contract for sale. Plaintiff fails to cite any authority for this allegation. Since the entry 

of original judgment in 2021 Plaintiff never requested any information concerning the Property, 

although it had the right to do so. 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Plaintiff’s motion, including the false 

allegations of fraud. Defendant made no misrepresentations to Plaintiff. 

Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and for such other 

relief to which it may be entitled.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Michael L. Jones

Michael L. Jones

State Bar No. 10929460 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL JONES, 

PLLC

mj@michaeljoneslegal.com

16901 Dallas Parkway, Suite 202 

Addison, Texas 75001 

 (214) 954-9704 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

STRATTON SECURITIES, INC.

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 154 Filed 05/25/23 Page 4 of 5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF SALES PROCEEDS – Page 5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 25, 2023, a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Turnover of Sales Proceeds was forwarded via email to

Benjamin P. Gates, (bpg@bengatespc.com), Law Office of Ben Gates, P.C., 7015 Snider Plaza, 

Suite 202, Dallas, Texas 75205, and Alfonso C. Nevarez (anc@nevarezlawgroup.com), 870 E. Rio 

Grande St., Eagle Pass, Texas 78852. 

 

 /s/ Michael L. Jones 

 Michael L. Jones

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 154 Filed 05/25/23 Page 5 of 5