### NUM BER 13-08- 0040 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN THE GUA RDIA NSHIP OF RAQUEL CA NTU D E VILLA RREA L,

A N INC A PA CITA

TE D PER SON
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This appeal ar is es from the g uardia nshi p proceed ing of R aq uel Can tú de Vi ll ar re al (“ Doñ a R aq uel ”)

. Doñ a R a que l, an e lde rl y w ido w , i s t he mothe r of sev en adul t c hil dren, inc lud ing appel lan ts, Ig naci o Vi ll ar re al Can tú, Con suel o Vi ll ar re al Can tú, Fer nando Vi ll ar re al Can tú, and Ma rt ha Guadal upe Vi ll ar re al Can tú, and app ell ee, R aq uel Vi ll ar re al Can tú, appear ing herein ind iv idu all y and in her capac ity as per manent g uar d ia n of theD oña R aquel ’ s sev en chi l dr en ar e as f ol l ows: Consuel o Vi l l ar r eal C ant ú, R aquel Vi l l ar r eal C ant ú, 1 M ar cel o Vi l l arr ea l C an t ú, C ar l os Vi l l ar r eal C ant ú, I gnaci o Vi l l ar r eal C ant ú, Fer nando Vi l l ar r eal C ant ú, and M a r th a G u a d a l u p e V i l l a rr e a l C a n tú

. M a rc e l o V i l l a rr e a l C a n tú a n d C a rlo s V i l l a rr e a l C a n tú a re n o t p a rti e s to th is a p p e a l.

S e e , e .g ., In re C a n tu , N o. 13- 08- 00437
- C V, 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S 5795, at * 1- 2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus 2 C hr i st i Jul y 30, 200 8, or i g. pr oceedi ng [ m and. den i ed] ) ( deny i ng p et i t i on f or wr i t of m andam us f i l ed b y I gnaci o, Fer nando , C onsuel o, and M ar t ha seek i ng t o com pel t he t r i al cour t t o vaca t e var i ous or der s per t ai ni ng t o t he g u a rd i a n s h i p o f D o ñ a R a q u e l ); In re C a n tu , 13- 08- 00682
- C V, 200 9 T ex. App. LEX I S ___, at __ ( T ex. A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti A p r . 2 , 2 0 0 9 , o r ig . p r o c e e d in g ) ( d e n yin g p e tit io n f o r w r it o f m a n d a m u s f ile d b y C o n s u e lo cont endi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t f ai l ed t o sat i sf y " t he m andat or y and j ur i sdi ct i onal n oti c e req ui r em ent s of t he T exas Pr obat e Code" beca use i t hel d an i ni t i al gua r di anshi p he ar i ng a nd a ppoi nted a te m por ar y gua r di an "w i th o u t g i v i n g th e p ro p o s e d w a rd p rio r n o ti c e a s re q u i re d b y s e c ti o n 8 7 5 o f th e T e x a s P ro b a te C o d e ”) ; I n re C a n tu , 1 3 -0 8 -0 0 7 0 7 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x . A p p . L E X IS _ _ , a t _

_ ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti A p r. 2 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h .) ( di sm i ssi ng I gnaci o’ s app eal of an or der r em ov i ng h i m as gu ard i an of t he p er son o fD oña R aquel )

. Al so c u r r e n tly p e n d in g in th is C o u r t is In re C a n tu , 13- 08- 00708
- C V, an appeal of ar bi t r at i on p r oceedi ngs i n t he under l y i ng d i sput e. 2 person of Doña Raq uel

. D is putes betw een the chi ldren re g ardin g Doñ a Raq uel ’s ca re and 1 custo dy and the disp osition o f h e r s iz eab le esta te ha v e giv en rise to a se ries of highly
c o n t e n t i o u s l e g a l p ro c e e d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g t h re e a p p e a l s a n d tw o o r i g i n a l p ro c e e d i n g s
. W e 2
w il l not address the factual and procedu ra l under pin nin g s o f these dis putes herein ex cept
as neces sar

y to address the leg al is sues per ti nent to t his appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1, 47.4

. In t his proceed in g, Ig naci o, F er nando, Con suel o, an d M artha a ppeal tw o pos tjud g ment orders of the tr ial court

. W e af firm, in part, and dis mis s, in part, as furthe r sta ted herein

. I. Bac kg ro und On Februa ry

1 2, 200 8, Doña Ra quel’s ch ildren en tered into an “Irrevocable Fam ily S e t t le me nt Agreem ent , Assignme nt, a nd Rele ase a nd Rule 11 Agreem ent ,” w hich purp orted to settle all claims and controversies between th e c h il d ren regarding their
m o t h e r’ s ca re a n d su p p o rta n d t h e o wn e rs h ip , t ra n s fe r , a n d c o n t ro l o f h e r p ro p e rt y.“H ot chpot ch, ” or“ hot chpot , ” or“ hodge podge ” i s m ay be gener al l y def i ned i n t hi s cont ext as “ t he 3 bl en di ng o f p rop ert i es to s ec ure eq ua l i t y of di vi s i on
. ” See B rya n A . G a rn e r, A D I C TI O N AR Y OF M OD E RN L EGAL U SAGE 40 8 (2d ed

. 19 95 ). 3 Pursuantto the s ettl ement ag re ement, the c hil dren ag re ed, i nter al ia, to create a tr ustand fund itw it h the por

ti ons of thei r mother ’s es ta te thatthey co ntroll ed. The ag re ement prov ide s, in par

t: Al l par ti es ag re e that the estate of Raq uel C antú de Vi ll ar re al cons is ts of the 34 mil li on pesos in the form of a chec k in a cour t in Me x ic o and w h a te ver money thati s i n the temporary gu ardia n of the est ate’ s a cc ounts i n the United State s. By

copy of th is Agreem e n ta ll p arties sha ll i nstructtheir attor ney s t o ta ke a ll neces sar y st eps to ha v e the se funds rele ased and del iv ered to [t he] bel ow menti oned Me x ic an Trus t that shal l be c re ated. The money in the account s in the Uni ted States of the temporar

y g uardia n of the esta te, Ja ime Diaz , shall also be placed in such Mexic a n T ru st. Th is menti oned M ex ic o proper ty shal l be admi nis tered by a M ex ic an Tr ustto be drafted by

C ar los Lug o and Mi g uel Ang el Abramo M arti nez
. The foll o wing proper

ti es bel ong to the s ev en c hil dren of R aq uel C antú de Vi l l a r re a l a n d s h a l l b e p l a c e d i n t o h o t c h p o t c h a n d d i s t r i b u t e d among and betw een t he sev en chil dren of Raq uel Cantú de Vil lar re al[ :] a) al l shares of San Pedro Impuls ora De Immuebles Especi ale s S.A. de C.V. , and anyand all as set s o f such company [;] b) real es tate proper ti es in Ex hib it s “ 1" and “2 "

. . . and c ) the b elo w

menti oned pro p e rt ie s t hat a re st ated to be par t of Hot chpot ch. 3 The tr ial co urt app ro v ed th e s e tt lement and inc or porated iti nto t he final j udg ment i n the
cas e by a first amended order

si g ned on Febr uar

y 14, 2008. Al leg ing thatIg naci o, C onsue lo, and Ma rt ha breache d the ag re ement and faile d to abi de by the jud g ment, Raq uel mov ed for an acc ounti ng and for cont empt and as ked for a temporar

y rest ra ini ng order

and temporar

y and per manent i nju nct ion s. The g ra v amen of Raq uel ’s compl ain t w as that appel lan ts w it hdrew the 34 mi ll ion pes os re ferenc ed i n the set tl ement ag re ement f ro m the poss ess ion of the Me x ic an cour

t, but fail ed to depos itthe monies i nto t he M ex ic an tr ustas req uired by the ag re ement an d j udg ment.W e n o te th a t th e a m o u n t a t is s u e v a r ie s f r o m 3 4 m illio n p e s o s t o 3 5 m illio n p e s o s . W e a s s u m e th a t 4 t he d i ff er ence i s cause d byaccr ui ng i nt er est ; howev er , we ne ed not addr ess t hi s i ssue h er ei n be cause t he di scr epancyi s not r el ev ant f or t he p ur poses ofourana l y si s. 4 On J u n e 1 1 , t h e t r i a l c o u rte n t e re d a n o rd e r g ra n t i n g R a q u e l ’ s m o t i o n
. T h e o rder
re ads, i n par

t: IT IS THER EFO RE , O RDERE D, AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED that IGNACIO VI LLA RREAL CANT Ú, FERNANDO VIL L A RREAL CANT Ú, C ON SU EL O VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ a nd /o r M AR TH A VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ are Ordered w it hin 10 d ay s from the entr y of thi s O rd er , t o depos itthe $35 ,00 0,0 00. 00 p esos listed in Paragraph 14 of the “Irrev ocab le Fam ily 4 Sett lementAg re ement, Ass ig nment, and Rel ease and R ule 11 A g re ement” (a ttac hed h e re to and fully i ncor porated int o thi s O rd er ) int o an acc ount created fo r the benefit o f the tr ustreferenc ed i n s aid parag ra ph 14 of the “F amil y Set tl ement A g re ement, Ass ig nment, and R ele a se a nd R ule 11 Ag re ement.” IT I S F U R TH E R O R D E R E D , A D J U D G E D A N D D E C R E E D that IG NA CI O VILL ARREAL CANTÚ, FERNANDO VILL ARREAL CANTÚ, C ON SU EL O VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ an d/ or M AR TH A VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ are Ordered, w it hin 10 day s f ro m the entr y of this Order , t o prov ide a de tai led acc ounti ng to thi s C our

t as to the w hereabouts of sai d $35, 000,000 .00 p esos li ste d in parag ra ph 14 of t he “I rrev ocabl e Fami ly Sett lement Agreement, Ass ig nment, and R ele ase and R ule 11 A g re ement.” Sa id acc ounti ng i s t o inc lud e the financ ial i nst it uti on w here s aid funds are on depos it , the name of the p erson under w hose name the funds are on depos it , t he s ig nator ies on said acco unt , the ty pe o f accou nt, a nd th e acco untnum ber. IT IS FU RTH ER O RDERED , AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED that IGNACIO VI LLA RREAL CA NT Ú, FERNANDO VILLA RREAL CANT Ú, CONSUELO VI LLA RREAL CANT Ú and/ or MARTHA VIL LARREA L CANT Ú, in a manner cons is tent w it h the abov e ter ms of t his Order , dep osi t s aid funds int o an acc ount w hic h w il l be under the joi nt control of Ig naci o Vil lar re al and Ma rc elo Vi ll ar re al[ .] IT I S FU RTH EROR DE RE D, AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED that IGNACIO VILLA RREAL C ANT Ú, FERNANDO VIL LARREA L CANT Ú, C ON SU EL O VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ an d/ or M AR TH A VI LL AR R EA L C AN TÚ are enj oin ed f ro m sel li ng , enc umber ing or othe rw is e transfer ri ng any of the real esta te prop erties de scribed in Ex hibits 1 and 2 of the “Irrev ocab le Fam ily Sett lementAg re ement, Ass ig nment, and R ele ase and R ule 11 A g re ement”5

in any manner incons is tent w it h the dispos it ion of said proper

ti es as prov ide d in sai d F amil y

Set tl ement A g re ement. IT IS THER EFO RE OR DE RE D that a final hear ing on P ETITION ER RA QU EL VI LLAR RE AL’ S SE CO ND AMENDED MO TION F OR AC CO UN TING OF THE $34 M ILLIO N PESO S W ITHD RAW N BY RESPO NDENTS AND THE REAL ES T AT E PROPE RTY W HICH IS THE SU BJE CT O F THIS LAW SU IT, AN D TEMPO RA RY IN JU NC TION be s et on June 27, 2 008, at 1: 30 p. m. . .
. At s u ch ti me, I GN AC IO VILLA RR EAL CA NTÚ , F ER NA ND O VI LLAR RE AL C AN TÚ, CO NS UE LO V ILLAR RE AL CA NTÚ and/ or

M AR THAV ILLAR RE AL C AN TÚ are OR DE RE D to ap pear before t his C our

t t o s how thei r compl ian ce w it h thi s C our t’ s O rd er herein to show w hy thi s C our

t’ s O rd er sh oul d be v acat ed. O n Ju n e 2 7 , I gn a c io , Fe rn a n d o , Co n s u e lo a n d Ma rt h a fa il e d t o a p p e a r, a n d a c c o rd in gl y, the t ri al cour

t ent ered an order

for i ss uance of w ri ts of attac hment ag ain st them. This appeal ens ued. In thei r firs t i ss ue, a ppel lan ts cont end that the order ente re d by the tr ial co urt on June 11, 2 008, is a v oid t e m p o ra ry inj unct ion bec ause: ( 1) i t i s n ot based on a v er ified appl ic ati on; ( 2) i t is n o t support ed by any ev ide nce admitted a t t he inj unct io n h e a ring ; and ( 3) i t fail s t o s et a bond. In thei r sec ond i ss ue, a ppel lan ts arg ue that the J une 27 order

for i ss uance of w ri ts of attac hment shoul d be re v ersed, and the w ri ts
ordered w it hdraw n, be caus e : ( 1 ) the mot ion for c ontempt w as not v er ified ; ( 2) the tr ial
cour t l ack ed th e aut hor ity to enforc e a temporar y inj unct ion thatw as on appe al; and (3 ) the und erly ing temp orary injunct ion must be rev ersed and the injunct ion dissolv ed becau se it fails to compl y

w it h Tex as Law

. II. J ur is dicti on Gen erally , app eals m ay be ta ken o nly f rom f inal judgme nts. Lehm ann v. Har -C on Cor p. , 39 S.W .3d 1 91, 1 95 ( Tex . 200 1)

. Acc ord in gly, a p arty may not appeal an int er loc utor

y order unless authori z ed byst atute

. Bal ly Tot al Fitnes s C or

p. v . Jack son , 53 S.W .3d 3 52, 3 52 ( Tex . 200 1) ; Jack B . An gli n Co. , Inc . v

. T ipp s , 8 4 2 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (T e x.6

1992) (or ig . proceed ing ); s ee O glet r ee v . Matth ews , 262 S.W .3d 316, 319 (Tex . 200 7)

. If
w e lac k ju ris d icti on, w e mustdi smi ss the attempt ed appe al. See K il roy v . Ki lr oy , 137 S.W .3d 7 80, 7 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 4, no pet. ). Gi v en th at t he orders u nder rev iew i n thi s a ppeal are pos t- jud g ment orders o f the trial court, rath er than a f inal judgme nt, we w ill examine our jurisdiction over each of these
orders i ndi v idu all y . III

. Post -J udg ment O rd er of June 11 A cour t has the inherent pow er to enforc e i ts jud g ments, ev en after the ex pirati on of i ts ple nar

y pow er , and the cour

t may empl oy su it abl e method s i n doi ng so
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 3 08; Arndt

v. Farri s , 633 S.W .2d 497 , 499 (Tex. 1982 ); E x p a r te Gor ena , 595 S. W .2 d 84 1, 84 4 (Te x . 197 9); se e al so In r e Cro w-Bi

ll ing sley Ai

r Par k, Ltd. , 98 S.W .3d 178, 179 ( Te x . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e “ t r i a l c o u rt h a s a n a ffi r ma t i v e d u t y t o e n fo rc e i ts jud g ment” u n d e r Ru le 308)

. Generall y , an order made for

the pur pose of car ry ing i nto effectan a lready -e ntered j udg ment i s n ot a final j u d gm e n t o r decree and canno t be appeal ed as suc h. See W agn er v. W

arna sch , 1 5 6 T e x. 3 3 4 , 2 9 5 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 3 (T e x. 1956) ; see als o T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51.012 (V er non 200 8) ( prov idi ng that final j udg ments of tri al cour ts are appea lab le) ; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 301 ( “O nly one final j udg ment shall b e ren de red i n an y c au s e ex c ep t w he re i t i s o th er w i s e s pe c i al l y

p rov i de d by

l aw .”). The “ usual w ri ts and orders t o ai d i n ex ecut ion to col lect a final money j udg ment are not , in general, ap pea lable o rders.” Schult z v. 5th Ju d. D is t. Cou rt

of Appeal

s o f D all as , 810 S.W .2d 7 38, 7 40 ( Tex . 199 1)

. If the order i s not a n appea lab le one, jur is dicti on does not attac h i n the co urt of appeal s. Id

. at n.6

. On the othe r hand , som e po st-judgme nt orde rs
are appea lab le. Id. at 740 (findi ng that a tur nov er order , w hic h resol v ed proper ty r ig hts andA t ur nov er or der i s a “ pr ocedur al dev i ce bywhi ch j udgm ent cr edi t or s m ay r each asset s of a debt or 5 t ha t are o t he rw i s e d i ffi c ul t t o a t t ac h o r l evy on by ordi na ry l eg al proc es s
. ” Beaum ont Bank N. A. v. Bull er , 806 S .W .2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ); see T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 1

. 0 0 2 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 )

. T o a c c o m p lis h tu r n o v e r , t h e c o u r t m a y: ( 1 ) o r d e r th e j u d g m e n t d e b to r to tu r n o v e r n o n e x e m p t p r o p e r ty t h a t is i n t he d ebt or ' s posse ssi on o r i s subj ect t o t he d ebt or ' s cont r ol t o a desi gnat ed sh er i fforconst abl e f or e x e c u ti o n ; (2 ) o th e rw i s e a p p l y th e p ro p e rty to th e s a ti s fa c ti o n o f th e ju d g m e n t; o r (3 ) a p p o i n t a re c e i v e r w i th th e a u th o rit y to ta k e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e n o n e x e m p t p ro p e rty, s e l l i t, a n d p a y th e p ro c e e d s
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 1 .0 0 2 (b ). A tu rn o v e r o rd e r m a y b e e n fo rc e d b y c o n te m p t p ro c e e d i n g s
. See i d. § 3 1 .0 0 2 (c ). A t urn ove r ord er es s en t i al l y pl ac es t he bu rde n of pro du c t i on of pro pe rt y w hi c h i s s ub je c t t o e x e c u ti o n to b e p l a c e d w i th th e d e b to r i n s te a d o f a c re d i to r a tte m p ti n g to s a ti s fy t h e h i s ju d g m e n t. See Bull er , 806 S. W

. 2d a t 226

. 7 act ed “ in the n ature of a mandat or y i nju nct ion ,” w as appeal abl e)

. As a g eneral r ule , for instan ce, tu rnover orders are f inal, ap pea lable o rders. Se e Bur ns v. Mi ller , H ier sche, 5 Martens & Hayward, P. C. , 909 S.W .2d 50 5 , 5 06 ( Tex . 199 5) ; Pandoz y v . Be aty, 254 S.W .3d 6 13, 6 17 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2008, no pet .) ; In re Ham el , 180 S.W .3d 2 26, 2 29 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 200 5, orig. proceed ing). W e l ook to t he s ubst ance of t he order to deter mine w hether i t i s a ppeal abl e. Se e, e.g., Wagner

, 295 S.W .2d at 892 (l ooki ng to the n ature of the post -j udg ment reli ef granted in the o rd er

as o ppose d to the reli ef actual ly req uest ed i n the moti on) ; cf. Surg itek, Br is tol -M yer s Cor p. v . Ab el , 997 S.W .2d 598 , 601 (Tex. 1999 ) ( const ruing the sub stan ce of a moti on, ra ther

than i ts ti tl e, t o det er mine the a v ail abi li ty of int er loc utor

y appeal ); accord Bu rke v. U

nio n Pac . R es. C o. , 1 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 , 6 0 ( Te x . A p p
. – Te x a r k a n a 2 0 0 4 , pet

. deni ed, p et. dis m'd [2 pets .]) (“ A moti on shoul d be cons tr ued by i ts subs tanc e to deter mine the relief sought, no t me rely

byits fo rm or capt ion.”). The order

at is sue is enti tl ed “ Order Granti ng Peti ti oner R aq uel Vi ll ar re al’ s S econd Amended M oti on for Acc ounti ng of the $34 Mi ll ion Pes os W it hdraw n by R espon dents and the R eal Es tate Proper ty W hic h i s t he Sub

ject of thi s Law sui t, and Temporar y Inj unct ion .” The subs tanc e of the order req uires aff ir mati v e ac ti on by appell ants

. It orders t he 35 mil li on pesos des cr ibe d i n the se ttl ement ag re ement t o be pla ced int o an acc ount created8

for th e benefitof the tr ust re ferenc ed in the set tl ement ag re ement. It orders a ppel lan ts to prov ide a de tai led ac count ing to the c our t reg ardin g the loc ati on of t he money at is sue. I t enj oin s a ppel la n ts f ro m sel li ng , enc umber ing , or transfer ri ng real es tate proper ti es
re ferenc ed i n the tr usti n any manner inc onsi ste nt w it h the set tl ement ag re ement. In s hor t, itorders p ro per

ty to be c oll ect ed, o r tur ned ov er , and act s as a mandat or y i nju nct ion as to the j udg ment deb tors o r transferees. W e c oncl ude t hat t he order at is sue act s “ in the nature of a mandator

y inj unct ion ,” w hic h make s i t app eal abl e. See S chultz , 810 S.W .2d at 74 0; Ken ned

y v. Hudna ll , 249 S.W .3d 520 , 524 (Tex. A pp. –T exarkana 200 8, no pet. ). Accordin gly , w e have jurisdiction over the a ppe al of t his orde r, a nd w ill proce ed to add ress the mer it s o f appell ants ’ is sues reg ardin g thi s o rd er
. By the ir f irst issue, appe llants conten d tha t the June 11 “tem pora ry injunctio n” is v oid becau se: ( 1) the moti on seek ing inj unct iv e re li ef w as not v er ified ; ( 2) the inj unct ion i s n ot supp orted b y

a ny evidence a ddu ced at the injunctio n he aring; and (3) the injunctio n fails to s et a bond. Appel lan ts ci te Tex as Rul es of C iv il Procedu re 682 and 684 i n s uppor t of thes e arg uments

. Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 682 prov ide s t hat: No w rit of

injunctio n sha ll b e granted unless th e ap plicanttherefor shall prese nt his pe tition to the jud ge verified byhis af f idavit and con tainin g a plain a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e s t a t e me n to f t h e g ro u n d s fo r s u c h re l i e f. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 682. Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 684 re q uires the c our t t o “fix the amount of secu ri ty to be g iv en by the appl ic ant” in the order g ra nti ng a t emporar y i nju nct ion

. See id. 684. The order

i nv olv ed in th is a p p eal i s n ot t he j udg ment i n thi s l aw sui t, nor i s i t a t e m p o ra ry in junctio n ob taine d as a precu rsor to a perm ane nt injun ction. Rather, it is a post -j udg ment order desi g ned to enforc e the final jud g ment prev iou sl y ente re d by

the tr ial9

cour t. As j udg ment c re dit ors, appel lee s w ere ent it led throug h i n juncti on or othe r means to o btai n s ati sfacti on on the j udg ment. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §31. 002 (V er non 200 8). T he ty pic al re q uirements for a n i nju nct ion are notappl ic abl e to an inj unct io n granted to enforc e a fin al jud g ment. Roo sth v. R oost h , 889 S.W .2d 4 45, 4 60 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1994, w ri t den ied ). Thus , Rul es 632 and 684 of the Tex as Ru le s o f Ci vil P ro c e d u re d o n o t c o n t ro l o u r an a lys is o f t h e t ri a l co u rt ’s o rd e r. A c c o rd in gl y,
w e overrule appe llants’ f irst and th ird sub-issues. In t hei r sec ond s ub- is sue, appel lan ts arg ue th at t he i nju nct ion w as not s uppor ted by any ev iden ce add uced at th e injun ction h earing. How ever, the trial court ha d be fore it subs tanti al ev ide nce present ed prev iou sl y i n c onnec ti on w it h numerous hear ing s a nd tr ial on th e mer it s o f this ca use. Moreov er , the tri al cour t had heard ev ide nce and arg uments on th e s peci fic i ss ues w hic h c ulmi nated in the o rd er su bje ct to ap peal . O n M ay 21, 2008, for i nst ance, M ig uel Ang el Abramo M arti nez , an attor ney l ice n se d to pract ic e i n M ex ic o,
w ho re present ed Ma rc elo , Raq uel , and Car los in some of t he proceed ing s, tes ti f ie d that after he had re lea sed an i nju nct ion hol din g the 34 mi ll ion pes os in the reg is tr y of the Mex ican cou rt, and the m one y w as release d and acquired by represe nta tiv es of app ellant s, appel lan ts faile d to co o p e ra te an d fund a M ex ic an tr ustw it h the 34 mi ll ion pes os as
re q uired by

the set tl ement ag re ement. The re wa s n o c ontrar y ev ide nce present ed by appel lan ts. M oreov er , on June 9, ap pel lan t’s couns el infor med the cour t t hat h e had no “p e rso n a l kn o wled ge” rega rd in g th e lo ca ti o n of t h e m iss in g f u n d s. Ba se d o n t h e fo re goi n g, the t rial cou rt’s de cision w as no t unrea sona ble or arbitrary and did notconstitu te an abu se of di sc re ti on. See S iv

ley v. Si vley , 972 S.W .2d 850 , 862 (Tex. App. –T y ler 1998 , no wr it). The tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

of June 11 i s a ff ir med.10 IV. C ontempt and Attac hment O rd ers o f June 27 In t hei r se co n d iss ue, a ppel lan ts arg ue th at t he tr ial co urt’ s “ Order for W ri t of Atta chment ” issu e d o n J u ne 27 shoul d be re v ersed and t he w ri ts of attac hment ordered
w it hdraw n bec ause: ( 1) the moti on for cont empt w as not v er ified ; ( 2) the tr ial co urt l ack ed the author ity

to enforc e a temporar

y inju nct ion that w as on appeal; and (3) the under ly ing temporar

y i nju nct ion mustbe rev ersed and t he i nju nct ion di ss o lved b e caus e i t fail s t o compl y w it h Tex as law . The J une 27 order is e nti tl ed “ Order

for I ss uance of W ri t of Atta chment ,” and prov ide s, in par t: The Co urt finds that– 1. Res p o n d e n ts

. . . w ere dul y noti ced to ap pear

before thi s C our

t on June 27, 2008 to show w hy they shoul d notbe found i n c ontempt of Cou rt

. 2. Res pondent s .
. . hav e fail ed to appear before thi s C our

t on June 27, 2008 t o s how

w hy they sh oul d notbe found i n c ontempt of Cour t. 3. It is therefore ORDERED tha t a w rit of atta chm entbe issued against Res pondent s .
. . 4. It is furth er

OR DE RE D that [respon dents ] may purg e hi msel f or hersel f bypos ti ng a bond i n the amount of $1,000,0 00.00 each, pay abl e to Peti ti oner , s ubj ectto approv al by thi s C our

t, condi ti oned on hi s/h er

co nti nui ng obedi ence of the orders e ntered by thi s C our

t on Febr uar y 14, 2008, June 11, 2 008, and J une 24, 2008. The cour t' s o rd er for i ss uance of w ri ts of attac hment w as an order for c onfinement based on th e c our

t' s fin din g that appell ants f ail ed to appear before the tri al cour t on June 27, as
ordered by

the cour t, and fail ed to co mply

w it h the co urt’ s o rd ers. Appel lan ts firs t cont end that the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er sh oul d be re v ersed becau se the under ly ing moti on for cont emp t was not v er ified

. How ev er , w here the order rela tes to puni shmentfor cont empt of a par ti cul ar show caus e order , a cont empt j udg ment i s v ali d,I ft her e i s no or der ofconf i nem ent , t hen t he pr operr em edy i s by wr i t of m andam us. S e e , e .g ., In 6 re Lo ng , 9 8 4 S .W .2 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 5 ( T e x . 1 9 9 9 ); D unn v. St reet , 9 3 8 S .W .2 d 3 3 , 3 5 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ); P a n d o zy v . B e a ty , 25 4 S

. W

. 3d 61 3, 61 6 (T ex
. A pp
. –T ex ark an a 2 00 8, no pe t

. ).

Accor di ngl y , we ne ed n ot r each t he i ssue r egar di ng whet her , gi v en t he a bsence ofa m ot i on t o qu ash 7 i n th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd , a p p e l l a n ts p re s e rv e d e rr o r t o c o m p l a i n a b o u t t h e w rit o f a tta c h m e n t. See, e. g. W al lace v . F ir s t N a t'l B a n ko f G a lla tin , 95 T ex. 103, 105, 65 S. W

. 180, 180 (1 901) (co ncl udi ng t hat any def ect s i n t he a tta c h m e n t p ro c e s s m u s t b e p re s e n te d to th e tri a l c o u rt i n a m o ti o n to q u a s h ); C a l v e rt v . B e n n e tt , 2 8 6 S .W

. 303, 304 ( T ex. C i v . App. –Am ar i l l o 1926, w r i t di sm ' d w. o. j

. ) (“ O bj ect i ons t o t he suff i ci ency oft he a t t achm ent bo nd co m e t oo l ate, w he n u rge d i n t hi s co urt for t he fi rst t i m e.” ). 11 notw it hst andi ng the non- v er ific ati on of the compl ain t. See E x p ar te Winfr ee , 153 Tex . 12, 263 S. W .3d 1 54, 1 58 ( Tex . 195 3)

. The v ali dity of an order

of confine ment i s g enerall y su bje ct to rev iew

onl y by w ay of
a w ri t of habeas co rp us. S e e , e
. g
. , E x p a rte W il lia ms , 690 S.W .2d 243 , 244 (Te x . 198 5); Gr im es v. Gr

im es , 706 S.W .2d 3 40, 3 43 ( Tex

. App.–S an Antoni o 1986, w ri t di sm' d) ( ci ti ng W agn er v. W

arna sch , 1 5 6 T e x. 334, 295 S. W .2d 8 90, 8 93 ( 1956) ). St ated other w is e, decision s in conte mp t proce edin gs w hich i nvolv e conf inem ent are not subje ct to ap pea l. S e e W il lia ms , 690 S.W .2d a t 243 n.1; Ex parte Cardwe ll , 416 S.W .2d 382 , 384 (T e x. 1967) ; Pandoz

y v . Be aty, 254 S.W .3d 613 , 616 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 2 0 0 8 , n o pe t.); Me tz ger v. Sebek , 892 S.W .2d 20, 54 (Tex. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 94, w rit denied ); Saenz v. Saenz , 756 S.W .2d 9 3, 95 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1988, no w ri t)

. Thi s i s t ru e 6
ev en w hen t he c ontempt order is bei ng appeal ed alo ng w it h a j udg ment t hat i s a ppeal abl e. See Metz

ger , 892 S.W .2d a t 54. Ac cordin g ly , w e hol d tha t t he “ Order for W ri t of At t a c h m e n t , ” an d the w rits of atta chm entthem selves, are not ap pea lable o rders. Th us,
w e do not h av e j ur is dicti on ov er appel lan ts' se cond is sue. T h e re fore, w e di smi ss the 7 appeal as i t rela tes to the J une 27 order and the w ri ts of attac hment.12 V. Con cl usi on T he Court, having f ully

e x am ined a nd consid ered t he ma tters here in, af f irms in part and di smi ss es in par

t. W e AFF IR M the tr ial cour t’ s order of J une 11, 2008. W e D ISM ISS FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION the a ppeal of the t ri al cour t’ s o rd er of June 27, 2 008, and the w ri ts of attac hment. The moti on for temporar y reli ef and sa nct ion s, prev iou sl y fil ed by app ellees, is D ENIED. App ellees’ m otion t o conso lidate and dismiss, as it pe rtains to th is
caus e, i s l ik ew is e D EN IED , as i s t hei r moti on for oral arg ument.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 2 nd day

of Apr il , 200 9.