The ba ckg round information in thi s para g raph comes from the tr ial court judg ment dated 1 September 28, 2001, attach ed t o t h e motion for enfor ceme nt in the clerk’ s rec ord. See Sm ith v. An dr e ws , No. 20808 (33rd Dist. Ct., Burne t County , Tex. S ept. 28, 2001) ( Sm ith ). F or conve nience , we may also ref er to thi s court’s opinion on the appe al from judg ment on the merits in the under ly ing dispute. Se e An dr e ws v . S mi th , N o . 0 3

- 0 1

- 0 0 4 0 2

- CV , 2 0 0 2 T e x. A p p . L EXI S 364 2 ( T e x. App.—Austin May

23, 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (op. on r eh’g ) ( An dr e ws ). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00835- CV

Dessie M aria Andrews an d Will iam T. Veith, Appellan ts
v. Tim ot hy C . Sm it h, I nde pe nde nt Exe c ut or of t he Est at e of Wi lli am Bas ka, De c e as e d, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BURNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 20808 , HO NORAB LE GUILFO RD L. JONES, II I, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Dessie Ma

ria Andre ws and Wil liam T
. Veith appe al a postjudg ment turnover or der enter ed by

the district court re quiring that $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 p o s t ed as a bond on be half of A ndrew s be de liv e re d to Ti mot

hy C. Smith, I nd e pe nd e nt Exe c uto r of the Es ta te of

Willi a m B a sk a , D e c e a se d, in partial satisfa ction of a pr ior, uncollec ted civil judgme nt. We affirm the or der.

Th is a pp e a l ha s it s r oo ts i n a

lon g -r un nin g dis pu te be tw e e n Sm ithand An dr e ws . 1 Smit h is the ex ecutor of Baska’ s estate a nd sole heir. Se e An dr e ws v . S mi th , No. 03-01-00402- CV, 2002 Tex. App. L EXI S 3642, at *2 (Te x . App.—Austin May 23, 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (op. on reh’ g ) ( An dr e ws ). Acc ording to the t rial cour t, Andrew s was in a f

iduciary relationship wit h Ba ska“ Al tho ug h d oc ke t e ntr ie s are no t g e ne ra lly c on sid e re d to be b ind ingor de rs of the c ourt , 2 they are eff ective in c erta in c ircumstance s and ca n be used to show the a

ppellate c ourt what oc curr ed in the lower c ourt.” Americ an Indus. Life Ins. Co. v. Ruvalcaba , 6 4 S. W. 3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 2 ( T e x. Ap p . — Ho u s t o n[ 1 4 t h Di s t
. ] 2 0 0 1 , p et
. d en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Quaestor Inv estments, Inc . v. State of Chiapas , 9 97 S.W. 2d

22 6, 22 9 ( Te x. 19 99 ); N- S- W Cor p. v . S ne ll , 561 S.W .2d 798, 799 (Tex. 1977) (orig . proce eding )). The state c ourt ac tion resumed whe n the fe dera l court ac tion was dismissed. 3 2 and was a “Purported T rustee of

an Alleg ed L CS Trust.” Se e Sm ith v . A nd re ws , No. 20808, at 1-2 (33rd Dist. Ct., Burne t County , Tex. S ept. 28, 2001) ( Sm ith ). Trial wa s held on Aug ust 6, 2001. A final judg ment on t h e merits was signe d on September 28, 2001. The judgme nt provided, among oth e r t hin g s, that th e L CS T ru st “ is n ull and vo id and do e s no t e xist by law, ” and that any pr op e rt y held in the name of

the trust that orig inally

belong ed to B ask a wa s subject to the leg al control of Smit h as executor of

Ba ska’s e state. Se e An dr e ws , 2 00 2 T e x. Ap p. L EX I S 36 42 , at *4 -* 5; Sm ith , at 2. The judg ment also awa rded pe rsonal prope rty t o S m i t h , as executor, a nd actua l damag es of $47,332.44 and exemplary damag es of $200,000, a s well as attorney ’s fee s and interest in favor of Smit h. Sm ith , at 4-10.

On J uly 30, 2002, Smit h filed a motion for enfor ceme nt of the judg ment. Acc ording to t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s do c ke t sh e e t, a he ari ng wa s set on the mot ion fo r en fo rc e me nt. Ac c or din g to 2 the cour t’s docket she et and discussio n s d u ri n g the hea ring , Andre ws was in the c ourthouse but opted not to appea

r at the hea

ring . The doc ket shee t refle cts that a show c ause or der issued r eg arding Andre ws on Aug ust 1, 2002, and that the district court he ld a hear ing on a motion for contempt. At the he ari ngon

the mot ion

fo r c on te mpt , the c ourt or de re d atta c hme nt “ pe r R ule 69 2. ” L a te r, state
c ourt a c tiv ity c e a se d w he n th e a c tio n w a s r e mov e d to fe de ra l c ourt
. 3Smit h’s attorne y stated at the Septe mber 9, 2005 he aringth at a wr i t o f attac hment was 4 issued for Andr ews in 2002 af ter she failed to a

ppear at a show c ause he aringrelated to the motion for e nforc ement of the underly i n g j u d gm en t in this cause. Andr ews de nies being char g ed with a f e l o n y. Smit h’s attorney ref err ed to Texas Code of C riminal Procedur e article 17.02 (W est 2005), 5 which provide s, “Any

cash f unds deposited under t h i s Article sha ll be rec eipted for by the offic er re c e ivi ng the same and sh a ll be re fu nd e d to the de fe nd ant if and wh e n the de fe nd ant c omp lie s w ith the conditions of his bond, and upon orde r of the c ourt.” 3 A bond dated June 4, 2004, states that $25,000 in c ash was deposited to e nsure that Andre ws would appea

r in c ourt in B urnet County to a nswer to a felony

char g e of f

ailure to a ppear . 4 On F e br ua ry 14 , 20 05 , An dr e ws fi le d a de mand fo r re tur n of the bo nd
. On

Au g us t 11 , 2 00 5, Ve ith filed a de mand for r eturn of the bond, asser ting that he and other s deposited the funds a s sureties for Andre ws. He c omplained that the bond wa s unnece ssary b ec au s e Andrews had neve r bee n
su mmo ne d an d ha d not fa ile d to a pp e ar f or a he ari ng . O n A ugus t 22 , 2 00 5, Smith f ile d a mot ion to apply cash b o n d t o wa rd judgme nt. By that motion, he sought to apply the $25,000 ca sh bond deposited on Andre ws’s behalf on the char g e of failure to a ppear toward the damag es due unde r “the J udg ment of August 6, 2001.”

The c ourt held a he aringon the motions to e n fo rc e an d to apply the bond on September 9, 2005. In its docket e ntry conce rning the hea

ring , the district court noted that Andrew s did no t a pp e ar a t th e he ari ngde sp ite havin g no tic e . Ve ith , d e sc ri bin g him se lf a s a sure ty on the c a sh 5 bond, objected to the motion contendingthat he and othe r sure ties—not Andrews—w ere the owner s of the funds de posited with the clerk’ s office to back the appea ranc e bond, and they

did not consent to us e of the fu nd s to satis fy

An dr e ws ’s jud g me nt d e bt. Th e c ourt no te d at th e he ari ngthat th e c a sh bond was not a surety bond, that it wa s posted by Andre ws, and that it c alled for t h e r et u rn o f t he de po sit e d f

un ds to A nd

re ws , n ot V e ith . T he c ourt acc or din g ly c on c lud e d th a t, w ithre sp e c t to4

Andre ws, Veith wa s a lender, not a surety
. The docket entry relating to the hearing ref lects that the court found that the bond was for feited a nd order ed the f

unds turned over

to Smi th. By

order signe d Se pte mbe r 9 , 20 05 , the dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d the mot ion and iss ue d an “ Or de r T ur nin g Ov e r C a sh Bond to J udg ment Creditor.” The court orde red the District Clerk of B urnet County to relea se the $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 c a s h b o n d

b y e x e c u t i n g a

c h e c k p aya b l e t o S m i t h an d

h i s a t t o r n e y. We review the district court’s turnove r orde r under an abuse of discre tion standard. Beaumont Bank

, N.A. v. Buller , 806 S.W .2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). We may reve rse f or an a buse of discretion only

if the district court a cted in a n unrea sonable or a

rbitrar y manner —i.e., if the district court a cted without re fer ence to any g uiding r

ules and p ri nciples. See D owner v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)
. We may not find an abuse of discre tion and
reve rse a n order mere ly beca use we disag ree with a dec ision by the trial cour

t, if that decision wa s within the trial court’s discr etionary authority
. Se e id . at 242. Most of appellants’ c omplaints are based on the premise that Smith, his attorney , and the cour t acted w ith disreg ard f

or trust proper

ty . They complain that the L CS Trust was never sued, that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ra ide d th e tr

us t, a nd that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ict io n ove r t

he tr us t. These c omplaints are addre ssed and answe red by the judgme nt on the merits in which the trial c ourt h e ld th a t th e L CS T r

u s t w a s n u ll an d void. Sm ith , at 2. That judg ment was a ffirme d. An dr e ws , 2 0 0 2 T e x . A p p . LE X IS 3642, at *4. The pe tition for reviewwas dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction by the Texas Supre me Court on Aug ust 29, 2002, and this Court issued its mandate on October 21, 2002. Thus, the judg ment is final. Be cause the L CS Trust had been a djudged n u l l , v oid, and nonexis tent at the time of the turnove r proc eeding , its absence fr o m the motions and turnover proce eding is not error.5 Ap pe lla nts c omp la in t

hat no mot ion

to e nf or c e wa s f

ile d o r s e rv e d a

nd that no ne is
on re c or d. Ho we ve r, the c le rk ’s re c or d in thi s a pp e a l c on ta ins a mot ion fo r e nf or c e me nt f

ile d w ith the district court on July

30, 2002. The he aringrevie wed in thi s appea l also was based on the motion to apply the ca sh bond toward j u d g ment, filed on August 22, 2005, and containe d in the cler k’s
rec ord in this appeal. In the motion to apply cash bond, Smith’s attorney , Richard Moc k, cer tified that he ser

ved copie s of that motion on Andrews a n d Ve i t h b y certified mail. At the hea ring , the fo llo wi nge xch ang e oc c ur re d a ft e r M oc k e xpla ine d th a t th e he ari ngc on c e rn e d b oth th e mot ion to
e nf or c e and the mot ion

to a pp ly the c a shbo nd

to t he jud g me nt:
M R
. V E IT H : H e r e ’ s h o w I k n e w I w a s s u

p p o s e d t o b e h e r e t o d ay: I h a v e t h i s c o p y. I s that what y ou have? MR. MOCK: That’s what I mailed y ou— MR. VEI TH: Okay . Okay . Ig ot this from Dessie. He r son g ave it to me. I didn’t g e ti tc e rt i f

i e d m a i l , b u tI g o th e r

c o p y. MR. MOCK: I sent it to both of y ou. M R
. V E IT H : I d i d

n ’ tg e ti t , b u tI g o th e r

c o p y. MR. MOCK: S o y ou g ot the motion also? MR. VE I TH : Rig ht. So I g ot h e r c op y . B ut I

have n’ t pi c ke d u

p th e ma il. MR. MOCK: Okay . So she did acknowle dg e— MR. VE I TH : Sh e g ot i t, y e s. M R
. M OC K: — get t i n g n o t i ce o f t h i s s et t i n g— MR. VE I TH : Y e s. M R
. M O C K : —t o d ay? O k ay.6

No thi ngin t

he re c or d c on tr ov e rt s th e se ind ic ia of fi lin g , s e rv ic e , a

nd re c e ipt of the mot ion s. Appellants also complain a bout the bond—whether

it was proper

and whe t her the funds could be r elea sed to someone other than Andre ws. The sc ope of our rev i ew i n t h i s appea l from the turnove r order is limited to the turnover proce eding
. The c halleng ed bond issued on June 4, 2004, so any

appellate deadlines c oncer ning r elated or ders r an bef ore a ppellants filed the notice of this appea l on Dece mber 21, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1. Thus, in t h i s ap p eal, we ca nnot consider w hether

the bond was a

ppropriate . As appe llants assert, the cash bond states that Andr ews is t he pe rs on e nti tle d to re c e ive the c a shif and wh e n th e bo nd

is e ve r r e le a se d. Th a t e xclu de s V e ith
and su pp or ts A nd re ws ’s ow ne rs hip ri g ht. Ho we ve r, the tur no ve r s ta tut e e mpo we rs cou rt s to he lp a judg ment cre ditor “re ach pr operty to obtain satisfaction on the judg ment if the judg ment debtor
owns proper

ty , including prese nt or future rig hts to proper ty . . . .” See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 31.002(a ) (West Supp. 2006). L ike her rig ht to other proper

ty , Andre ws’s rig ht to rece ive the ca sh deposited wit h the clerk as t he bond—a none x empt asset—is subject to Smith’s rights as her judgm en t cre ditor. Se e id . The district cour t ordere d the bond re lease d and the f unds held by the cler k’s offic e applied to the pa rti al s at i sfac tion of the amounts due under the outstanding judgme nt. The cour

t is ex pressly

empower ed to do this pursuant to section 31.002(b)(2)
. Id
. We conclude that the di strict court acted withi n its discretion by order ing the funds t urned over to satisfy the jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f S mith r a the r t

ha n r e tur ne d to An dr e ws . Appellants complain that S mith has not soug ht a writ of possession or c ontacted the Depa rtment of Motor Ve hicles. This is appar ently a re fer ence to the transfe r of t i tle of motor
ve hic le s r e qu ir e d b y the jud g me nt. Th a t tr ans fe r i s o nly pa rt of the jud g me nt o n th e me ri ts o f t his suit and is not a prec ondition to pay ment of th e m o n et ar y d am ag e aw ards. The district court’s7

judgme nt included an a

war d in fa vor of Smith of actua l damag es of $47,332.44 a nd exemplary damag es of $200,000, a s well as attorne y ’s fe es and inter est. The judg ment require s pay ment of the se a mou

nts ir re sp e c tiv e of e nf

or c e me nt ef

fo rt s r e la tin g to t

he no nmo ne tary

re lie f i n th e jud g me nt. Finally , Andre ws asser

ts that she is not a United States citizen a nd that this Court and the dis tr ic t c ourt

have jur isd ic ti on on ly ov er c iti zen s. To the c on tr ary , T e xas c ourt s c an e xer c ise jur isd ic tio n o ve r d e fe nd ants wi tho ut r e fe re nc e to wh e the r t he y are c iti zen s e ve n if

the de fe nd a nt i s not a Texas resident. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.042 (West 1997); Mi c hia na Ea sy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. H

olten , 168 S.W. 3d 77 7, 78 4- 85 (T e x. 20 05 ); Sc hlo bo hm v . S c ha pir o , 784 S.W .2d 35 5, 356 (Tex. 1990). Andre ws’s Austin, Texas addre ss—used in the ca sh bond, the
cer tificate of service in Smi th’s motion to apply the ca sh bond, and appe llants’ brief—indicates that she is a Te x as resident. Reg ardle ss, A ndrew s’s asser tion of noncitizenship is not dispositive of and is irreleva nt to whether Te x as cour

ts may exercise jurisdiction over her. Concluding that appellants have raised no r ever sible err or, we aff irm the order
.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: September

29, 2006