1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00157-CV

__________________

NEW PENN FINANCIAL LLC D/B/A SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE 

SERVICING AND MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P., Appellants

V.

BEVERLY SALVAGIO AND JAMES DAVID SALVAGIO, Appellees

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-201,268 

________________________________________________________________________

__________________

NO. 09-19-00254-CV

__________________

IN RE MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding – Writ of Injunction

From the 58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-201,268

__________________________________________________
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CONTEMPT

Background and Procedural Posture

In appeal number 09-19-00157-CV in this Court, MTGLQ Investors, L.P.

(MTGLQ) and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (Shellpoint) appeal the trial court’s 

summary judgment orders in the parties’ underlying litigation.1 During the pendency 

of the appeal, MTGLQ filed an original proceeding petitioning for a writ of 

injunction to prohibit James David Salvagio from transferring or otherwise disposing 

of the subject real property, which was assigned cause number 09-19-00254-CV. On 

August 21, 2019, thisCourt issued the following writ of injunction:

TO: JAMES DAVID SALVAGIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BEVERLY 

SALVAGIO, DECEASED, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND 

TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES DAVID SALVAGIO LIVING ESTATE 

TRUST

Whereas MTGLQ Investors[,] L.P. (“MTGLQ”), relator in this 

cause, has filed a petition for injunctive relief, and a majority of the 

Justices of the Ninth Court of Appeals, upon presentation by MTGLQ 

of its request for injunctive relief, issued an opinion that granted the 

petition for writ of injunction.

THEREFORE, you, James David Salvagio, individually and as 

independent executor of the Estate of Beverly Salvagio, Deceased, and 

as beneficiary and trustee of the James David Salvagio Living Estate 

Trust, are ENJOINED from directly or indirectly selling, conveying, or 

otherwise disposing of the following property located in Jefferson, 

County, Texas: Lot Number sixteen (16), in Block Number five (5) of 

1 The issues raised in the underlying appeal are being addressed in a separate 

memorandum opinion of this Court.
3

Helena Park, section three (3) addition to the City of Nederland, 

Jefferson County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in 

volume 11, page 4, map records in the office of the County Clerk of 

said county and state, commonly known as 3119 Nashville, Nederland, 

Texas 77627.

The injunction issues without bond and shall continue in effect 

until this Court’s mandate has issued in the underlying appeal, appeal 

number 09-19-00157-CV, styled New Penn Financial LLC d/b/a 

Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and MTGLQ Investors[,]L.P. v. Beverly 

Salvagio and James David Salvagio, or until further order of this Court.

ISSUED under my hand and seal August 21, 2019.

_________________________

CAROL ANNE HARLEY

Clerk of the Court

James David Salvagio did not challenge this injunction.

Upon receiving notice that on or about August 19, 2020, James David 

Salvagio violated this Court’s August 21, 2019 writ of injunction by executing a 

warranty deed as trustee of James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust to Julianne 

Salvagio and John Salvagio, and that the grantees of the warranty deed, Julianne 

Salvagio and John Salvagio, purported to grant a first lien in the property to Quicken 

Loans, LLC to secure a note in the amount of $164,000, we ordered the trial court 

to conduct a hearing, as follows:

ORDER

On August 21, 2019, this Court granted a writ of injunction 

enjoining James David Salvagio, individually and in any of his 

representative capacities, including as the independent executor of the 

Estate of Beverly Salvagio, Deceased, and as beneficiary and trustee
4

of the James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust, (“Salvagio”) from 

directly or indirectly selling, conveying, or otherwise disposing of the 

following property located in Jefferson[] County, Texas: Lot Number 

sixteen (16), in Block Number five (5) of Helena Park, section three (3) 

addition to the City of Nederland, Jefferson County, Texas, according 

to the map or plat of record in volume 11, page 4, map records in the 

office of the County Clerk of said county and state, commonly known 

as 3119 Nashville, Nederland, Texas 77627.

On November 12, 2020, this Court received notice that Salvagio 

violated the writ of injunction by conveying the property to Julianne 

Salvagio and John Salvagio on August 19, 2020, by warranty deed 

subject to a deed of trust granting a first lien to Quicken Loans, LLC to 

secure a note in the amount of $164,000. It appears that James David 

Salvagio has violated this Court’s August 21, 2019 writ of injunction 

and that he is in contempt of an order of the Court of Appeals. An 

appellate court has limited ability to develop evidence, however, the 

parties should have the opportunity to develop evidence and testimony 

and to cross-examine witnesses. A Court of Appeals may refer 

contempt proceedings to the trial court for hearing and factfinding. In 

re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114, 124 (Tex. 2004).

We refer the notice of injunction violation to the trial court and 

instruct the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings 

of fact on whether James David Salvagio, individually and in any of 

his representative capacities, including as the independent executor of 

the Estate of Beverly Salvagio, Deceased, and as beneficiary and

trustee of the James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust, (“Salvagio”)

directly or indirectly sold, conveyed or otherwise disposed of the 

following property located in Jefferson[] County, Texas: Lot Number 

sixteen (16), in Block Number five (5) of Helena Park, section three (3) 

addition to the City of Nederland, Jefferson County, Texas, according

to the map or plat of record in volume 11, page 4, map records in 

the office of the County Clerk of said county and state, commonly 

known as 3119 Nashville, Nederland, Texas 77627.

We direct the trial court to issue a notice for a show cause hearing 

on a date and time certain for James David Salvagio to appear in 

person and answer the allegations made by MTGLQ Investors[,]L.P. 
5

in its notice of injunction violation and any motion for contempt that 

may be filed at least ten days before the hearing, to make findings of 

fact and to make recommendations regarding coercive, curative, or 

punitive measures to address any violation of our writ of injunction of 

August 21, 2019. A reporter’s record of any hearing conducted by the 

trial court, together with a clerk’s record containing any motions and 

responses filed by the parties and the findings and recommendations of 

the trial court, shall be filed with the Court of Appeals by January 22, 

2021.

ORDER ENTERED November 23, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

On December 10, 2020, Shellpoint and MTGLQ Investors, L.P. filed a motion 

for contempt and requested a show cause hearing. On January 6, 2021, Salvagio, as 

Trustee and Beneficiary of the James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust, filed a 

“NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF TRUSTEE & BENEFICIARY OF TRUST 

THAT THIS IS A COURT OF EQUITY AND I REQUIRE THE EXCLUSIVE TO 

ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF THE TRUST” in which he requested a protective 

order from a subpoena duces tecum. On January 6, 2021, the trial court held the 

evidentiary hearing that we ordered on November 23, 2020. 

On January 13, 2021, the trial court issued findings of fact, as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

On August 21, 2019, the Court of Appeals, Ninth District of 

Texas at Beaumont issued a writ of injunction enjoining James David 

Salvagio, individually and as independent executor of the Estate of 

Beverly Salvagio, Deceased, and as beneficiary and trustee of the James 
6

David Salvagio Living Estate Trust from directly or indirectly selling, 

conveying or otherwise disposing of property at 3119 Nashville, 

Nederland, Texas 77627.

On November 23, 2020, after MTGLQ[] Investors, LP. notified 

the court of appeals Mr. Salvagio violated the writ of injunction, the 

court of appeals issued an order directing this court issue a notice for 

show cause hearing ordering James David Salvagio to appear in person 

and answer the allegations made by MTGLQ’s notice of injunction 

violation. The order further directed this court to hold an evidentiary 

hearing and make findings of fact on whether James David Salvagio, 

individually and in any of his representative capacities, including as 

independent executor of the Estate of Beverly Salvagio, Deceased, and 

as beneficiary and trustee of the James David Salvagio Living Estate 

Trust, directly or indirectly sold, conveyed or otherwise disposed of 

property at 3119 Nashville, Nederland, Texas 77627 and to make 

recommendations regarding coercive, curative, or punitive measures to 

address any violation of the writ of injunction.

On the 6th day of January 2021, came on for hearing Shellpoint 

and MTGLQ’s motion for contempt. Upon consideration of the motion, 

evidence, including testimony from James David Salvagio, responses, 

and the arguments presented, THE COURT FINDS James David 

Salvagio knowingly violated the writ of injunction by conveying the 

property as trustee of the James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust on 

August 14, 2020 to John and Julianne Salvagio. THIS COURT 

THEREFORE recommends that James David Salvagio be found in 

contempt of court for violating the writ of injunction.

SIGNED this 13th day of January, 2021. 

 /S/____________________________ 

 HONORABLE W. KENT WALSTON

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records containing the matters 

addressed by the trial court have been filed with the appellate court. Based on the 

trial court’s findings and recommendation, it appears that James David Salvagio is 
7

in willful violation of the writ of injunction issued by the Ninth Court of Appeals on 

August 21, 2019, in that on August 19, 2020, he conveyed to Julianne Salvagio and 

John Salvagio the real property known as Lot Number sixteen (16), in Block Number 

five (5) of Helena Park, section three (3) addition to the City of Nederland, Jefferson 

County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in volume 11, page 4, map 

records in the office of the County Clerk of said county and state, commonly known 

as 3119 Nashville, Nederland, Texas 77627, by signing, in his capacity as “Trustee 

of the James David Salvagio Living Estate Trust dated November 11, 2011, and any 

amendments thereto” a warranty deed with vendor’s lien from James David Salvagio 

Living Estate Trust, as grantor, to Julianne Salvagio and John Salvagio, subject to a 

deed of trust granting a lien to Quicken Loans, LLC to secure a note in the amount 

of $164,000.

We allowed the parties to file briefs with this Court regarding whether the 

evidence adduced at the hearing before the trial court supports the trial court’s 

findings, whether the trial court’s findings support a judgment of contempt, and the 

appropriate punitive or coercive contempt in the event the Court finds a willful 

violation of the Court’s writ of injunction.

Salvagio’s Arguments

Salvagio as an individual person was, he concedes, before this Court in the 

appeal and in the injunction proceeding when we enjoined Salvagio, a person,from 
8

conveying the property in any capacity, specifically including in his capacity as a 

trustee. Salvagio clearly had notice of our injunction, as he was represented by 

counsel in the proceeding and admits that after we issued our injunction he 

personally drafted and filed a response in his capacity as Trustee. 

Salvagio argues that he cannot be held in contempt as an individual because 

“Salvagio, individually, did not transfer the property[.]” He adds that “Salvagio, as 

the Trustee, does not contest the facts related to the transfer itself. It clearly 

happened.” However, he cites no supporting authority for his argument. 

In the hearing before the trial court, which was held on January 6, 2021, 

Salvagio testified that the net proceeds from the sale were paid into an account in 

the name of the trust. Salvagio argues he cannot be subject to coercive civil contempt 

because his testimony established impossibility of performance, as follows:

Q. [By Counselfor Salvagio]: All right. Now, with respect to the 

sales proceeds, I think you answered this; but I just want to be clear. I 

think what your testimony was, if you were say confined to jail until 

you unwound the transaction paying off the Quicken Loans lien, you 

don’t have themeans or the ability to do that?

A. [By Salvagio] Correct.

This argument assumes that the only way to remedy Salvagio’s contemptuous act of 

conveying the property in violation of this Court’s injunction is to return the same 

funds that were received in the transaction. There is no evidence in the record that it 

would be impossible to obtain a re-conveyance of the property. Therefore, 

Salvagio’s conclusory assertion that he could not unwind the Quicken Loans 
9

transaction if he were confined in jail does not establish that any order of civil 

contempt this Court might issue would be void. 

Salvagio suggests this Court cannot order Salvagio to be confined in jail 

before an opinion issues in the appeal of the trial court’s judgment. We need not 

address this argument, as we issue our opinion and judgment in the appeal 

contemporaneously with the issuance of our opinion and judgment of contempt. 

Analysis

Because Salvagio violated a writ of injunction issued by our court, our court 

must be the one to hold him in contempt if it is to be done. Courts possess the 

inherent power to enforce their own orders through contempt proceedings. In re

Gabbai, 968 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex. 1998). While on appeal, the appellate court has 

exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the orders at issue in the appeal, regardless of 

whether contempt occurred before or after the appellate court acquired jurisdiction. 

Id. The trial court has no authority to punish a relator for violating requirements only 

found in an appellate court’s order. See id. When evidence is required in such a 

determination, it is appropriate for the appellate court (while retaining jurisdiction) 

to refer the matter to the district court for hearing the evidence, then the district court 

may forward the transcript to the appellate court. See Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 

542, 544–45 (Tex. 1976) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 

114, 123-24 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The matter here wasreferred to the trial 
10

court for evidentiary findings, the trial court has no power to enforce our orders. See 

Gabbai, 968 S.W.2d at 931. The trial court found that Salvagio knowingly violated 

this Court’s writ of injunction “by conveying the property as trustee of the James 

David Salvagio Living Estate Trust on August 14, 2020 to John and Julianne 

Salvagio.”The trial court further recommended that Salvagio be found in contempt.

There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil, and the distinction 

between them hinges on the nature and purpose of the sentence. Werblud, 536 

S.W.2d at 545; Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2001, pet. denied); see also Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 369–70 (1966).

“The purpose of civil contempt is remedial and coercive in nature.” Werblud, 536 

S.W.2d at 545. With a judgment of civil contempt, the court exerts its judicial 

authority to persuade a contemnor to obey a court’s order where such obedience 

benefits an opposing litigant. Id. On the other hand, criminal contempt is punitive in 

nature. Id. The punishment is not dependent on future performance, rather the 

contemnor is punished for “some completed act which affronted the dignity and 

authority of the court.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Cadle Co., 50 S.W.3d at 667 

(noting in criminal contempt proceedings “no subsequent voluntary compliance can 

enable the contemnor to avoid punishment.”). A hybrid order assessing sanctions for 

both civil and criminal contempt is allowed. See Ex parte Sanchez, 703 S.W.2d 955, 

957 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding); Cadle Co., 50 S.W.3d at 667—68.
11

Based upon the findings of fact made by the trial court in the trial court’s order 

dated January 13, 2021, we have determined James David Salvagio willfully 

violated this Court’s writ of injunction and is in contempt. As punishment for this 

contempt, we assess a $500 fine against Salvagio. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §

21.002(b)(setting out maximum punishment for criminal contempt as not more than 

$500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months or both).

“Civil contempt is coercive and is based on the notion that the contemnor 

‘carries the keys of [his] prison in [his] own pocket.’” Ex parte Rojo, 925 S.W.2d 

654, 655 (Tex. 1996)(quoting Werblud, 536 S.W.2d at 545). Ex parte Johns outlined 

a court’s available remedies for coercive contempt. 807 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1991, orig. proceeding). “In these matters, a judge can impose either a fine or

imprisonment, or both, so long as the imprisonment is conditional.” Id. at 770 

(emphasis added); see also Ex parte Perry, No. 04-14-00567-CV, 2014 WL 

4347740, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 3, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.). A daily coercive fine is not limited by section 21.002(b), which governs 

criminal contempt fines. See Cadle Co., 50 S.W.3d at 668.

In re Chaumette addressed a similar fact scenario and involved the transfer of 

real estate in violation of a trial court’s injunction. 439 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding). There, the trial court found that 

the relator violated the trial court’s order by conducting a trustee’s sale, then by 
12

executing and recording a substitute trustee’s deed. See id. The trial court ordered 

that the relator “shall be confined in the Brazoria County Jail until he purges himself 

of contempt by executing and recording a document in form acceptable to the Court, 

vacating the said substitute trustee’s deed, effective September 6, 2011[.]” Id. The 

relator tried to purge himself of the contempt by filing a “Rescission of Foreclosure 

Sale” in the real property records, but the trial court found this unsatisfactory. See 

id. The trial court then tried to have relatorsign an “Order and Declaratory Judgment 

on Amended Motion to Vacate Substitute Trustee’s Deed,” and execute a 

“Rescission of Deed” document to reverse the transaction, but the documents were 

returned to the trial court unsigned. See id at 415. The relator said he could not sign 

them since they contained inaccuracies. See id. The relator attempted to execute the 

documents in a form he was comfortable with, but the trial court apparently found 

the relator’s attempts insufficient. See id. The trial court then issued a capias for the 

relator’s arrest based on the prior civil contempt order. See id. Ultimately, theFirst 

Court of Appeals granted habeas relief, holding “that the purging provision of the 

contempt order does not ‘spell out exactly’ in clear and unambiguous language what 

relator must do to purge the contempt.” Id. at 416; see also In re Houston, 92 S.W.3d 

870, 877 (Tex. App.—Houston [14thDist.] 2002, orig. proceeding). (order must tell 

contemnor in “clear, specific, and unambiguous terms” how to purge himself of 

contempt); Ex parteRosser, 899 S.W.2d 382, 387 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 
13

1995, orig. proceeding) (order not clearly specifying action relator must take is 

void). An order of contempt must describe in specific terms the exact documents the 

contemnor needs to obtain to purge himself of contempt. See Chaumette, 439 S.W.3d 

at 416.

In addition to a punitive fine in the amount of $500.00, as a condition of his 

release or to purge himself from the contempt, we order James David Salvagio to 

obtain an executed general warranty deed from John Salvagio and Julianne Salvagio, 

as grantors, to James David Salvagio “as trustee of the James David Salvagio Living 

Estate Trust,” conveying the real property described as Lot Number sixteen (16), in 

Block Number five (5) of Helena Park, section three (3) addition to the City of 

Nederland, Jefferson County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in 

volume 11, page 4, map records in the office of the County Clerk of said county and 

state, commonly known as 3119 Nashville, Nederland, Texas 77627. James David 

Salvagio is further ordered to file the properly executed general warranty deed with 

the Jefferson County Clerk’s Office, 1085 Pearl Street, First Floor, Beaumont, Texas 

77701, for recording in the real property records of Jefferson County, Texas, 

instanter. James David Salvagio shall file notice with this Court concurrently with 

the filing of the documents with the County Clerk’s office. We further order James 

David Salvagio shall be fined the amount of $500 per day for each and every day 
14

until such properly executed document is filed in the real property records of 

Jefferson County, Texas, beginning on the first day after the issuance of this order. 

Conclusion

Having determined James David Salvagio willfully violated this court’s writ 

of injunction after providing notice and an opportunity to show cause in the trial 

court, we hold James David Salvagio in contempt. We assess a $500 punitive fine 

for his willful violation of this Court’s writ of injunction. Additionally, James David 

Salvagio is ordered to obtain a properly executed general warranty deed as described

in our judgment of contempt and is assessed a coercive fine of $500 per day until 

such time as the properly executed general warranty deed is filed with the Jefferson 

County Clerk’s office.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered April 8, 2021

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.