NO. 03-14-00460-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

SANDRA FORD AND THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 

Appellants, 

v. 

WILLIAM RUTH, JUDGMENT CREDITOR 

Appellee. 

On appeal from the 424th District Court,

San Saba County, Texas, Cause No. 9145

JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

Coby D. Smith 

State Bar No. 00788433 

BRACKETT & ELLIS, 

A Professional Corporation 

100 Main Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3090 

(817) 338-1700 

Facsimile (817) 870-2265 

csmith@belaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH 

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP

Burt L. Burnett 

State Bar No. 00787171 

Majd Ghanayem 

State Bar No. 24078556 

THE BURNETT LAW FIRM 

P.L.L.C., 

P.O. Box 1521 

Abilene, TX 79604 

325-673-4357 

325-428-0428 (Fax) 

BurtLBurnett@yahoo.com

Majd@burtburnett.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

SANDRA FORD 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00460-CV

3881585

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/23/2015 2:41:21 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/23/2015 2:41:21 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
ii

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: COUNSEL:

Sandra Ford Burt L. Burnett

State Bar No. 00787171

Majd Ghanayem

State Bar No. 24078556

THE BURNETT LAW FIRM P.L.L.C.,

P.O. Box 1521

Abilene, TX 79604

325-673-4357

325-428-0428 (Fax)

BurtLBurnett@yahoo.com

Majd@burtburnett.com

The Ruby and Annie Smith Family

Partnership

Coby D. Smith

State Bar No. 00788433

BRACKETT & ELLIS,

A Professional Corporation

100 Main Street

Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3090

(817) 338-1700

Facsimile (817) 870-2265

csmith@belaw.com

APPELLEE/PLAINTIFF: COUNSEL:

William Ruth, Judgment Creditor Robert P. Wilson

State Bar No. 2178575

Law Offices of Robert P. Wilson

26545 IH-10 West, Suite 150

Boerne, TX 78006

210-698-1933

Fax: 210-698-1944
iii

rwlawoffice@yahoo.com

Frederick F. Hoelke

State Bar No. 09775600

26545 IH 10 West, Suite 100

Boerne, Texas 78006

210-444-0999

Fax: 210-444-0996

fredhoelke@aol.com

OTHER RELATED PARTIES

Peggy Joyce Ruth, mother of 

Plaintiff/Appellee, and a partner in The 

Ruby and Annie Smith Family 

Partnership

James Crow, brother of Peggy Joyce 

Ruth, and a partner in The Ruby and 

Annie Smith Family Partnership

Arma Lee Crow, mother of Peggy Joyce 

Ruth, James Crow, and Sandra Ford, 

grandmother of William Ruth, and a 

partner in The Ruby and Annie Smith 

Family Partnership
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES ........................................................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................1

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................2

ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................................................................3

I. Whether The Interlocutory Agreed Order Entered By The Trial 

Court Became A Final And Enforceable Judgment Under The 

Merger Doctrine When The Agreed Order Was Not Definite 

and Certain. ...........................................................................................3

II. Whether The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court 

Was Void When It Was Entered After The Trial Court’s 

Plenary Power Expired And When There Was No Valid Final 

Judgment For The Trial Court To Enforce Or Protect..........................3

III. Whether The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion In Entering An 

Injunction That Is Not Specific And Does Not Reasonably 

Describe The Acts To Be Restrained, Such That Peggy Joyce 

Ruth and William Ruth May Attempt To Enjoin Lawful 

Activities. ..............................................................................................3

IV. Whether The Anti-Suit Injunction Is Void Where It Was 

Entered By The Trial Court While Sitting In Burnett County In 

This San Saba County Lawsuit. ............................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................4

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................11

ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................12

I. The Merger Doctrine Did Not Apply To Make The 

Interlocutory Agreed Order A Final Enforceable Judgment 

Where The Agreed Order Is Not Definite And Certain......................12

A. A Final Judgment Must Be Define And Certain. .....................13
v

B. The March 22, 2012 Agreed Order Is Not Definite And 

Certain.......................................................................................13

II. The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court Is Void 

Where There Was No Valid Final Judgment For The Trial 

Court To Enforce Or Protect. ..............................................................14

III. This Court Of Appeals Has Jurisdiction To Declare The AntiSuit Injunction Void. ...........................................................................15

IV. The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court Is Not 

Specific And Does Not Describe The Acts To Be Restrained In 

Reasonable Detail................................................................................16

V. The Anti-Suit Injunction Is Also Void Because It Was Entered 

In Burnett County................................................................................17

PRAYER..................................................................................................................18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................20

APPENDIX

Agreed Order ..........................................................................................App-A

Order On Dismissal Hearing ..................................................................App-B

Permanent Injunction..............................................................................App-C
vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Arndt v. Farris, 

633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) .........................................................................15

Crites v. Collins, 

284 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. 2009) .........................................................................12

Hatton v. Burgess, 

167 S.W.2d 260 (Tex. App.−Beaumont 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.) ................14

In re Rodriguez,

2004 WL 814298 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.). (Tex. 

App.−Dallas 2006, no pet.)............................................................................16

Lagos v. Plano Economic Development Board, Inc.,

378 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012, no pet.)................................ 16, 17

Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip. Inc.,

10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) ...........................................................................14

Latty v. Owens, 

907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) ............................................................ 14, 15, 16

Lehman v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) ...........................................................................12

Logan v. Mullis, 

686 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) .........................................................................12

Malone v. Hampton, 

182 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App.−Dallas 2006, no pet.).......................................15

McNally v. Guevara,

52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001) ...........................................................................12

O’Quinn v. Hall, 

77 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.)............................18

Rapid Settlements, LTD v. Symetra Life Ins. Co.,

234 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.−Tyler 2007, no pet.) ........................................15
vii

Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 

870 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1994) ...........................................................................13

Wall St. Deli, Inc. v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.,

110 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.−Eastland 2003, no pet.) .....................................15

Statutes

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.012 ...................................................................18

Rules

Tex. R. Civ. P. 301...................................................................................................12

Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b.................................................................................................14
1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case:

This appeal arises from protracted litigation involving multiple lawsuits and 

disputes among multiple family members that have been ongoing for almost five 

years. In the present case, William Ruth, acting as plaintiff, filed suit against The 

Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership, as defendant, in San Saba County. In 

this lawsuit, William Ruth asserted causes of actions against the Partnership for 

specific performance, breach of an agreement, and statutory fraud. (C.R. 2-5). 

Mr. Ruth had his mother served as a partner for the Partnership, (C.R. 88-89), had 

his mother admit multiple requests for admissions, (C.R. 90-96), and had his 

mother sign an interlocutory Agreed Order which purported to grant Mr. Ruth 

specific performance regarding the sale of Partnership property. (C.R. 97-98).1

 

The lawsuit was later dismissed on June 26, 2013 for want of prosecution. (C.R. 

169)2

.

Almost one year later Mr. Ruth filed an anti-suit injunction in the trial court below, 

claiming the previously entered interlocutory Agreed Order was a final judgment, 

and seeking to enjoin the Partnership and the other partners from pursuing claims 

in the ongoing Brown County litigation against Mr. Ruth and his mother relating, 

in part, to their actions in this San Saba Lawsuit. (C.R. 170-203).

Trial Court:

The 424th District Court, San Saba County, Texas, Cause No. 9145; The Honorable 

Judge Dan H. Mills, Presiding.

Course of Proceedings and Trial Court Disposition:

On June 24, 2014, while sitting in Burnett County, Texas, the trial court entered a 

permanent injunction in this San Saba County Lawsuit, enjoining Appellants from 

“moving forward” in the Brown County Lawsuit. (C.R. 248-49).3

 1

 A true and correct copy of this Agreed Order is attached hereto as Appendix “A.” 2

 A true and correct copy of this Dismissal Order is attached hereto as Appendix “B”. 3

 A true and correct copy of this Permanent Injunction is attached hereto as Appendix “C.” 
2

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The undersigned, as counsel for Appellants, and in compliance with Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.1(e) and 39.1, requests oral argument in the above-styled and numbered 

appeal.

/s/ Coby D. Smith

Coby D. Smith
3

ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Whether The Interlocutory Agreed Order Entered By The Trial

Court Became A Final And Enforceable Judgment Under The 

Merger Doctrine When The Agreed Order Was Not Definite and 

Certain.

II. Whether The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court 

Was Void When It Was Entered After The Trial Court’s Plenary 

Power Expired And When There Was No Valid Final Judgment 

For The Trial Court To Enforce Or Protect.

III. Whether The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion In Entering An 

Injunction That Is Not Specific And Does Not Reasonably Describe 

The Acts To Be Restrained, Such That Peggy Joyce Ruth and 

William Ruth May Attempt To Enjoin Lawful Activities.

IV. Whether The Anti-Suit Injunction Is Void Where It Was Entered 

By The Trial Court While Sitting In Burnett County In This San 

Saba County Lawsuit.
4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This appeal arises from a fraudulent scheme by Plaintiff William Ruth and 

his mother, Peggy Joyce Ruth, to cheat other family members in a family 

partnership. Specifically, Mr. Ruth and his mother secretly attempted to obtain a 

judgment for specific performance relating to family partnership property located 

in San Saba County, Texas. Not surprisingly, there is more to the background of 

this case than what is reflected this one lawsuit.

The plaintiff in this case, William Ruth, is the son of Peggy Joyce Ruth, and 

her husband, James A. Ruth. He is also an attorney. Peggy Joyce Ruth is one of 

four family members who are partners in The Ruby and Annie Smith Family 

Partnership, one of the Appellants herein. The other three partners are Arma Lee 

Crow, who is Peggy Joyce Ruth’s mother, and James Crow and Sandra Ford, who 

are Peggy Joyce Ruth’s brother and sister, and the other children of Arma Lee 

Crow. (C.R. 177-79). This lawsuit is one of multiple lawsuits amongst these and 

other family members that have been ongoing in Brown County, Texas for almost 

five years. The following is a brief chronological history of these lawsuits.

February 12, 2010 – Lawsuit Filed Between The Four Partners

The first lawsuit involving the four partners was filed on February 12, 2010 

styled Arma Lee Crow, James Albert Crow, and Sandra Kay Ford vs. Peggy Joyce 

Ruth in Cause Number CV 10-02-049. This lawsuit was a suit for partition of real 
5

property in Brown County, Texas. (C.R. 179). On February 22, 2010, James A. 

Ruth, the husband of Peggy Joyce Ruth, filed a pro se Petition in Intervention in 

Cause Number CV10-02-049. (C.R. 180). Over one year later, on September 6, 

2011, William Ruth filed a Petition in Intervention in the first lawsuit, and filed a 

Motion to Recuse Judge Stephen Ellis.

October 27, 2011 – William Ruth Files Separate Brown County Lawsuit On 

Behalf Of The Partnership

On October 27, 2011, William Ruth filed a new lawsuit in the 35th District 

Court of Brown County, styled William Ruth, Individually and In the Interest of 

Arma Lee Crow and The Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership vs. James 

Crow and Sandra Ford, in Cause Number CV 11-10-385. (C.R. 158, 182). Acting 

as his own attorney, and purportedly acting on behalf of his grandmother, Arma 

Lee Crow, and on behalf of the Partnership, William Ruth alleged this second 

lawsuit arose out of the first lawsuit (Cause No. CV 10-02-049) in the District 

Court of Brown County. The petition references both the San Saba County 

property as well as Brown County property and The Ruby and Annie Smith Family 

Partnership. The petition also alleged breach of fiduciary duties, defamation, 

fraud, and sought the expulsion of James Crow as a partner in The Ruby and Annie 

Smith Family Partnership. (C.R. 158). 
6

January 11, 2012 – William Ruth Files This San Saba Lawsuit Against The 

Partnership

On or about January 11, 2012, William Ruth, acting as plaintiff, filed this 

lawsuit against The Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership, as defendant, in 

San Saba County. The petition was entitled “Plaintiff’s Original Petition With 

Request for Disclosure and Request for Admissions.” In this lawsuit, William 

Ruth asserted causes of actions against the Partnership for specific performance, 

breach of an agreement, and statutory fraud.4

 He also asserted a claim for 

attorneys’ fees. (C.R. 2-5).

To effectuate service of this San Saba Lawsuit on the Partnership, William 

Ruth had his own mother, Peggy Joyce Ruth, served as a partner of the Partnership. 

Specifically, William Ruth had his mother execute a waiver of citation. (C.R. 88-

89). Not surprisingly, his mother admitted every request for admission served with 

the original petition. The responses to the request for admissions were mailed on 

January 19, 2012, only 8 days after the San Saba Lawsuit was filed, and were filemarked on January 20, 2012. (C.R. 90-96). The responses to request for 

admissions appear to be filed by attorney Charles King as attorney for the 

Partnership. However, Mr. King has stated that he did not file the responses to 

 4

 Interestingly, William Ruth was suing the Partnership in the San Saba Lawsuit at the same 

time he was purportedly representing the Partnership in the second lawsuit in Brown County. 
7

request for admissions. Rather, Mr. King states the following in a letter to Judge

Stephen Ellis of Brown County, that was copied to the trial court in this lawsuit:

“Bill Ruth went over Peggy Joyce Ruth’s Responses with me via 

teleconference and then signed them for me. With the Brown County 

case final and having different Appellate Counsel, my Interest was 

simply that no judgment be taken against Peggy Joyce Ruth by Bill 

Ruth. I did not authorize anyone to file anything on my behalf for the 

partnership; and in looking at the responses, he did not sign for me as 

attorney for the partnership. It said ‘Peggy Joyce Ruth of the 

Partnership, not for it.”

(C.R. 161) (emphasis in original).

5

 Mr. King’s letter was in response to a letter by 

Judge Ellis that was also copied to the trial court in this lawsuit. (C.R. 156-62).

Less than a week after the responses to the request for admissions were filed, 

on January 25, 2012, Mr. Ruth filed a motion for summary judgment, based in 

large part on the responses to the request for admissions. (C.R. 35-37). Thereafter, 

on March 22, 2012, the trial court in the San Saba Lawsuit entered an Agreed 

Order that was signed by William Ruth and Peggy Joyce Ruth. (C.R. 97-98). This 

Agreed Order purported to grant William Ruth’s motion for summary judgment for 

specific performance, and alternatively purported to award William Ruth $265,000 

as actual damages in the event specific performance was not possible. However, 

the Agreed Order did not address in any fashion Mr. Ruth’s claim for Statutory 

Fraud. Nor did the Agreed Order address Mr. Ruth’s claim for attorneys’ fees. 

 5

 Contrary to Mr. King’s assertion, the answers to the request for admissions were signed as 

“Attorney for Defendant.” (C.R. 90). And the Defendant was The Ruby and Annie Smith 

Family Partnership. 
8

Finally, the Agreed Order did not include any language indicating that it was a 

final appealable order, or that it disposed of all parties and all claims. (C.R. 97-

98).

The other partners in the Partnership were not aware of these events 

regarding the lawsuit and the request for admissions. Once they did become aware 

of the above events, the other partners in the Partnership filed an intervention in the 

San Saba Lawsuit, and attempted to get a hearing on various matters. However, 

the court would not allow any hearing. (C.R. 113, 135). 

This lawsuit then sat dormant for a number of months, until approximately 

April of 2013. On or about April 16, 2013, a Notice of Dismissal Docket was 

purportedly sent out by the trial court. (C.R.168). This Notice indicates it was 

mailed to the attorney for the three other partners who had filed the Intervention. 

However, counsel for these other partners never received that notice. Thereafter, 

on June 26, 2013, the court in the San Saba Lawsuit entered an Order on Dismissal 

Hearing, dismissing the entire case for want of prosecution. (C.R. 169).

Consolidation and Further Proceedings in the Brown County Lawsuits

On September 19, 2013, Judge Stephen Ellis, as the presiding judge of the 

35th Judicial District Court, conducted hearings in both Cause Number CV10-02-

049 and CV11-10-385. At this time, the trial court granted the consolidation of 

these two cases into Cause Number CV10-02-049A. The court also entered its 
9

scheduling order in the consolidated case and set it for a preferential trial on the 

jury docket for April 21, 2014. (C.R. 185).

On December 23, 2013, Peggy Joyce Ruth, James A. Ruth, and William W. 

Ruth filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing, Motion for 

Special Exceptions, Request for Sanctions, and a Request to Modify the Court’s 

Scheduling Order in Cause Number CV10-02-049A. (C.R. 185). William W. 

Ruth was acting as the attorney for all of the movants on these motions. 

On December 30, 2013, The Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership filed 

a Plea in Intervention in Brown County Cause Number CV10-02-049A. (C.R. 

185). 

On March 17, 2014, for the first time, Peggy Joyce Ruth and her husband, 

James Ruth, filed a Motion to Abate and Arbitrate in Cause Number CV10-02-

049A. The trial court denied the motion to arbitrate and Peggy Joyce Ruth filed an 

interlocutory appeal in the Eastland Court of Appeals. This resulted in a stay of 

the Brown County Lawsuit. (R.R. 6-7). That appeal is still pending in the 

Eastland Court of Appeals under Appellate Cause Number 11-14-00102-CV. 
10

William Ruth Files Anti-Suit Injunction In San Saba Lawsuit

On April 14, 2014, William Ruth filed an anti-suit injunction in the San Saba 

Lawsuit seeking, among other claims, to enjoin the Brown County Lawsuit from 

proceeding. (C.R. 170-203). On that same date, the trial court below issued a 

temporary restraining order. (C.R. 224). This temporary restraining order 

purported to restrain the Partnership and other three partners from pursuing their 

claims in the Brown County Lawsuit relating to the fraud committed in the San 

Saba Lawsuit by Peggy Joyce Ruth and William Ruth. (C.R. 225). The order 

further ordered the Partnership and partners to appear in Burnett County on April 

15, 2015. (C.R. 226). The following day, the trial court entered a modified 

temporary restraining order. (C.R. 227-230). This modified order entered on April 

15th was signed by the trial judge in Burnett County. (R.R. Vol. II, p. 1). 

Thereafter, on June 25, 2014, while sitting in Burnett County, the trial judge signed 

the permanent injunction enjoining the Partnership and Sandra Ford from pursuing 

the claims relating to William Ruth’s and Peggy Joyce Ruth’s actions in the San 

Saba Lawsuit. (C.R. 248-49).
11

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In January of 2012, with two other lawsuits involving William Ruth and The 

Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership already pending in Brown County, 

Texas, William Ruth and his mother, Peggy Joyce Ruth, embarked on a scheme to 

cheat other Partnership members by attempting to secretly obtain a summary 

judgment relating to Partnership property in San Saba County, Texas. To 

accomplish this scheme, William Ruth: (1) filed this lawsuit against the 

Partnership in secret; (2) had his own mother served as a partner in the Partnership; 

(3) had his mother admit multiple request for admissions; and (4) had his mother 

sign an Agreed Order purporting to grant William Ruth a summary judgment for 

specific performance allowing him to purchase the Partnership property. 

Fortunately for the other members of the Partnership, the Agreed Order entered 

into by William Ruth and his mother was interlocutory when it was originally 

signed by the trial court, was not sufficiently definite and certain to ever be 

considered a final judgment, and thus became null and void when this lawsuit was 

later dismissed for want of prosecution. Because the Agreed Order was not a final 

judgment, the trial court had no power or authority to enter the anti-suit injunction 

in this case, and such injunction is void.
12

ARGUMENT

I. The Merger Doctrine Did Not Apply To Make The Interlocutory 

Agreed Order A Final Enforceable Judgment Where The Agreed 

Order Is Not Definite And Certain.

The Agreed Order entered by the trial court on March 22, 2012 was an 

interlocutory order, as that order did not dispose of all claims asserted by William 

Ruth. Specifically, the Agreed Order did not dispose of Mr. Ruth’s claims for 

statutory fraud and for attorney’s fees. (C.R. 5, 97-98). The order also did not 

include any language stating that it was a final appealable order that disposed of all 

parties and all claims. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that when the Agreed Order 

was entered on March 22, 2012, it was not a final judgment. See Crites v. Collins, 

284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009); McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 

2001); Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 199-200 (Tex. 2001). It also 

cannot be disputed that there can be but one final judgment signed in a lawsuit. 

Tex. R. Civ. P. 301; Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605, 609 (Tex. 1985). Thus, the 

question becomes, “what is the one final judgment entered by the trial court in this 

case?”

In entering the anti-suit injunction that led to this appeal, the trial court 

attempts to treat the Agreed Order as the one final judgment, stating: “The Court 

finds that the judgment entered in this cause on March 22, 2012 is a final 

judgment.” (C.R. 248) In reaching this conclusion, it appears the trial court was 
13

attempting to treat it as if the interlocutory order entered on March 22, 2012 was 

merged or transformed into the one final judgment when the trial court entered its 

dismissal order on June 26, 2013. However, the Agreed Order cannot be 

considered a final judgment because it is not definite and certain.

A. A Final Judgment Must Be Define And Certain.

In order to be a final judgment, “[a] judgment must be sufficiently definite 

and certain to define and protect the rights of all litigants.” Stewart v. USA Custom 

Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1994). Alternatively, the 

judgment “should provide a definite means of ascertaining such rights, to the end 

that ministerial officers can carry the judgment into execution without 

ascertainment of facts not therein stated.” Id. If the purported judgment is not 

definite and if its meaning cannot be determined from the purported judgment, it is 

not a final judgment. See id.

B. The March 22, 2012 Agreed Order Is Not Definite And Certain.

In the present case, the Agreed Order entered by the trial court is neither 

definite nor certain. Specifically, the Agreed Order purports to grant judgment for 

William Ruth for specific performance with respect to a real estate sales contract. 

(See C.R. 97-98). However, the Agreed Order fails to identify the real property at 

issue whatsoever, much less provide a sufficient description to allow the sheriff or 

any other ministerial officer to determine what real property was purportedly to be 
14

conveyed to William Ruth. Further, the Agreed Order referenced a sale agreement 

between the Partnership and SRK Ranch, LLC, not William Ruth – which begs the 

question, “who is actually entitled to specific performance?” (C.R. 97-98). 

Accordingly, the Agreed Order was not sufficiently definite and certain to be 

considered a final judgment. Hatton v. Burgess, 167 S.W.2d 260, 262-63 (Tex. 

App.−Beaumont 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.) (holding that judgment was void where it 

did not provide sufficient information to identify land awarded to prevailing party).

II. The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court Is Void 

Where There Was No Valid Final Judgment For The Trial Court 

To Enforce Or Protect.

As a general rule, a trial court retains plenary jurisdiction over a case for 

thirty days after entry of judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d); Lane Bank Equip. Co. 

v. Smith S. Equip. Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Tex. 2000). This period can be 

extended, however, upon the timely filing of various post-judgment motions, such 

as a motion for new trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b; Lane Bank, 10 S.W.3d at 310. In 

the present case, no motion for new trial or similar motion was filed. Therefore, 

the trial court’s plenary power expired on July 26, 2013, thirty days after the 

dismissal order was entered. (C.R. 169). Any judicial action taken or order signed 

after the court’s plenary jurisdiction has expired is a nullity and is void. Latty v. 

Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995).
15

It is true that a trial court has the power or jurisdiction to enforce or protect 

its final judgments even after plenary power has expired. Arndt v. Farris, 633 

S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1982); Wall St. Deli, Inc. v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 

110 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. App.−Eastland 2003, no pet.). This would include the 

power to grant an anti-suit injunction to prevent an attack on a valid final 

judgment. See Rapid Settlements, LTD v. Symetra Life Ins. Co., 234 S.W.3d 788, 

795 (Tex. App.−Tyler 2007, no pet.). However, in the present case, there was no 

valid final judgment for the trial court to protect or enforce. As discussed above, 

the Agreed Order referenced in the trial court’s anti-suit injunction was not a final 

judgment. Rather, the only final judgment was the trial court’s June 26, 2013 

dismissal order which dismissed the entire lawsuit for want of prosecution. 

Therefore, the anti-suit injunction, which was entered outside the trial court’s 

plenary power, is a nullity and is void. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486; Malone v. 

Hampton, 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex. App.−Dallas 2006, no pet.).

III. This Court Of Appeals Has Jurisdiction To Declare The 

Anti-Suit Injunction Void.

Because the anti-suit injunction entered by the trial court is void and a 

nullity, it is actually unnecessary to appeal. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. However, 

“it is nevertheless settled that an appeal may be taken and the appellate court in

such a proceeding may declare the judgment void.” Id. Therefore this Court 
16

should declare that the Agreed Order was not a final judgment because it was not 

definite and certain,6 declare the trial court’s June 26, 2013 dismissal order is the 

one and only final judgment that is intact in the court below, and declare the antisuit injunction entered by the trial court void. See Latty, 907 S.W. 2d at 486; In re 

Rodriguez, 2004 WL 814298 *1 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.). (Tex. 

App.−Dallas 2006, no pet.).

IV. The Anti-Suit Injunction Entered By The Trial Court Is Not 

Specific And Does Not Describe The Acts To Be Restrained In 

Reasonable Detail.7

A judgment for permanent injunction must describe the acts to be enjoined 

in reasonable detail. Lagos v. Plano Economic Development Board, Inc., 378 

S.W.3d 647, 650 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012, no pet.). However, the injunction 

should not be so broad as to enjoin a defendant from lawful activities. Id.

In the present case, the injunction entered by the trial court attempts to 

permanently enjoin Sandra Ford and the Partnership “from moving forward in the 

Brown County Lawsuit in collaterally attacking the judgment entered by [the trial 

court] on March 22, 2012.” (emphasis added). However, this injunction does not 

describe in reasonable detail what acts are to be restrained. Because of this lack of 

 6 See supra Section II. 7 Appellants strongly believe that this appeal should be decided in Appellants’ favor based upon 

the arguments and authorities set forth in sections I, II and III above, and that the injunction 

entered by the trial court should be set aside and declared void based upon those arguments and 

authorities alone. However, in the event this Court disagrees, Appellants further assert that the 

injunction should set aside for the reasons set forth in sections IV and V.
17

detail, the injunction could possibly be interpreted to preclude the Partnership and 

other partners from exercising other appropriate legal rights. For example, the 

Brown County Lawsuit involves, among other causes of action, claims by the other 

partners and the Partnership against Peggy Joyce Ruth for fraud, conspiracy and 

breach of her fiduciary duties in secretly participating in and allowing the alleged 

judgment in the San Saba Lawsuit to be taken against the Partnership. (C.R. 210-

222). These claims are in no way barred by the alleged judgment in the San Saba 

Lawsuit, and the trial court has no basis to enjoin the pursuit of such claims. Yet, 

due to the lack of reasonable detail and the overbroad nature of the injunction, one 

could certainly anticipate Peggy Joyce Ruth, who is not even a party to this 

lawsuit, claiming that the injunction entered in this case prohibits the other partners 

from “moving forward” and asserting their valid legal claims against her for fraud, 

conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and many other claims. Because the 

injunction entered by the trial court is not specific, is overly broad, and possibly 

attempts to enjoin lawful acts, the trial court abused its discretion in entering such 

injunction. Lagos, 378 S.W.3d at 650-51.

V. The Anti-Suit Injunction Is Also Void Because It Was Entered In 

Burnett County.

The first temporary injunction hearing in this case was held on April 15, 

2014 in Burnett County, Texas. (R.R. Vol. 2, p. 1). Likewise, a second temporary 
18

injunction hearing was held in Burnett County on April 29, 2014. (R.R. Vol. 3, p. 

1). Finally, the injunction entered by the trial court was signed by the trial judge 

sitting in Burnett County. (C.R. 249). However, because William Ruth sought and 

the trial court granted this anti-suit injunction, venue was mandatory in San Saba 

County, Texas. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.012; O’Quinn v. Hall, 77 

S.W.3d 452, 455-56 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). As a result, the 

injunction entered by the trial court while sitting in Burnett County is void.

PRAYER

BASED ON THE ABOVE, Appellants respectfully pray that this Court 

declare that the March 22, 2012 Agreed Order entered by the trial court was an 

interlocutory order and not a final judgment, that the Agreed Order was not merged 

into a final judgment because it was not definite and certain, that the trial court’s 

plenary power expired on July 26, 2013, and that the permanent injunction entered 

by the trial court on June 25, 2014 is void and a nullity and is of no force or effect.

Respectfully submitted:

/s/ Coby D. Smith

Coby D. Smith

State Bar No. 00788433

BRACKETT & ELLIS,

A Professional Corporation

100 Main Street

Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3090
19

(817) 338-1700

Facsimile (817) 870-2265

csmith@belaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH 

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP

AND

/s/ Burt L. Burnett

Burt L. Burnett

State Bar No. 00787171

Majd Ghanayem

State Bar No. 24078556

THE BURNETT LAW FIRM P.L.L.C.,

P.O. Box 1521

Abilene, TX 79604

325-673-4357

325-428-0428 (Fax)

BurtLBurnett@yahoo.com

Majd@burtburnett.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

SANDRA FORD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

forwarded to the following counsel of record pursuant to the applicable Rules of 

Appellate Procedure:

Robert P. Wilson

Law Offices of Robert P. Wilson

26545 IH-10 West, Suite 150

Via E-Serve: rwlawoffice@yahoo.com
20

Boerne, TX 78006

Frederick F. Hoelke

26545 IH 10 West, Suite 100

Boerne, Texas 78006

Via E-Serve: fredhoelke@aol.com

Dated: January 23, 2015

/s/ Coby D. Smith

Coby D. Smith

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned counsel certifies that this document complies with Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4, with a font size of 14 point, footnotes in 12 

point, and word count of 5,129.

/s/ Coby D. Smith

Coby D. Smith 
APPENDIX "A" 
.... 

WILLIAM RUTH 

vs 

THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH 

FAMILY PARTNERSIDP 

CAUSE NO. 9145 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

AGREED ORDER 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

424TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

SAN SABA COUNfY, TEXAS 

On this'?.--"2---day of March, 2012, came to be heard the Motion for Summary Judgment duly 

filed by William Ruth. The Plaintiff, William Ruth, appeared in person and announced ready. The 

Defendant, Peggy Joyce Ruth, individually, and as a general partner of The Ruby and Annie Smith 

Family Partnership appeared in person and/or by signing this Agreed Order prior to the hearing. 

The Court after considering the Motion, supporting exhibits and pleadings on file in this 

cause and having heard arguments is of the opinion and finds that said Motion is well taken and 

should be granted. The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as a result 

of Defendant's breach of contract, but not as to Peggy Joyce Ruth, individually. 

The Court :finds that there are no issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to Summary 

Judgment in that there was a binding and enforceable sale agreement between Defendant and SRK 

Ranch, LLC in which Plaintiff was to obtain an undivided one~third interest and use of the entire 

property located in San Saba County, Texas which is the subject of this suit. The Court further finds 

that the Closing was terminated as a result of the criminal conviction of James A Crow, one of the 

Partners of The Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership in which Crow is jointly and severely 

liable for any and all damages. The Court further finds that Defendant Peggy Joyce Ruth has 

authority to sign the Agreed Order on behalf of the Partnership because no managing partner was 

designated and in accordance to §152.302. 
( ( 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff, William Ruth, have summary judgment 

against Defendant for breach of agreement and for specific performance. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that specific performance is not possible, 

Plaintiff, William Ruth, have judgment against Defendant for the sum of $265,000 for his actual 

damages arising from Defendanes failure to prevent such damages. 

SIGNED this k '-- day of March, 2012. 

--
APPENDIX "B" 
.. 

WILLIAM RUTH 

vs 

( 

THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH 

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 

CAUSE # 9145 

( 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

33RD. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

SAN SABA COUNTY, TEXAS 

ORDER ON DISMISSAL HEARING 

on this the · day of June, . the above entitled and numbered cause 

was called for dismissal hearing pursuant to Rule 16Sa, Texas Rules of 

Civl Procedure. 

Appear9.nces~ :. ;, 

Pltf/Pet (vr1id not appear 

Def/Res ( did not appear 

( )did not appear -~-------, )did not appear 

( ~ORDER DISMISSING 

( )appeared 

( }appeared 

( ) appeared 

( · ) appeared 

( } by attorney _______ _ 

( i by attorney~---------- ( ) by attorney ___________ _ 

( )by attot:ney ________ _ 

Good cause for maintaining case on docket not having been shown, IT IS 

ORDERED said case hereby DISMISSED for want of prosecution, with co~rt costs 

taxed against ( )Plaintiff/Petitioner ( )Defendant/Respondent 

( )Party incurring same ( )Other 

8ign~d this 26TH. day of June, 2013 

)ORDER MAIWfAINING ON DOCKET 

Good cause for maintaining case on docket having been shown, IT IS 

ORDERED that said case is to remain on the docket of this Court, subject to 

the following pre~trial order: 

1. Parties and counsel are ORDERED to appear before~----~--~~~~ 

for alternate dispute resolution thro~gh arbitr~tion and to comply with all 

instructions and directives of said arbitrator. 

2. Final trial set for the day of ,20_, at a.m 

3. 

A pre-trial conference with the Court may be held if requested, in writing 

by·any party at least 14 days prior to trial date. 

Failur@ to comply with this pre-trial order may, at the discretion of·the 

Court, subject the defaulting party to sanctions as provided under the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Signed this the 26TH.· day of June, 2013 

;s6. 
APPENDIX "C" 
CAUSE NO. 9145 

WILLIAM RUTH, JUDGMENT 

CREDITOR 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

ARMA LEE CROW, JAMES ALBERT 

CROW, SANDRA FORD 

and THE RUBY AND ANNIE SMITH 

FAMILY PARTNERSIDP 

Defendants 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

( 

IN THE 4241

b JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT OF 

SAN SABA COUNTY, TEXAS 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

On this the 251h day of June, 2014 came on for consideration the hearing on the Plaintiff, 

William Ruth's request for a pennanent injunction in the above styled cause. The Plaintiff 

appeared in person and through his counsel. On the 17111 day of June, 2014 the Court entered a 

Default Judgment as to liability only against Sandra Ford and the Ruby and Annie Smith Family 

Partnership setting the entry of a permanent injunction, turn over order and damages for the 25th 

of June, 2014. Judgment Creditor Plaintiff Ruth on this day has requested only the entry of the 

permanent injunction and a severance of the other claims inclusive of the tum over order. The 

Defendants, Arma lee Crow, Sandra Ford and the Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership 

were cited and given notice of this hearing but did not appear. The Defendant James Albert Crow 

is incarcerated and was not served. Mr. Crow did not appear. 

The Court after considering the argument of counsel and considering the evidence 

presented hereby makes the following findings and ruling: 

a. The Court finds that the judgment entered in this cause on March 22,2012 is a final 

judgment; 
( 

' 

b. The Court finds that the Defendants in their lawsuit styled Anna Lee Crow et al v. 

William Ruth et al. Cause No. CVl0-02-049-A filed in the 35th Judicial District 

Brown County Texas (the "Brown County" litigation) seeking to set aside this 

judgment are attempting to collaterally attack the judgment; 

c. The Court finds that the Defendants Sandra Ford and The Ruby and Annie Smith 

Family Partnership were served with citation and process and failed to answer and or 

make an appearance. 

d. The Court fmds that it should enter the Permanent Injunction as to Sandra Ford and 

The Ruby and Annie Smith Family Partnership and these parties are permanently 

enjoined from moving forward in the 351

h District Court in collaterally attacking the 

judgment entered by this court on March 22, 2012 . 

e. The Court further severs this permanent injunction from the rest of the underlying 

claims and instructs the clerk to issue a new cause number for the remaining unadjudicated matters. The purpose of this severance is to allow the permanent 

injunction against these parties to become a final judgment. 

Executed and entered this the 2 ~y of June, 2014. 

~lL/~.tt _ j;)/,~J ~~ /l•l"~ &•Ab-