1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

KYLE B. ROWE, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:04-cv-1875-G 

 § 

GARY REEVES, ET AL., § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff Kyle Rowe filed a motion to renew a money 

judgment, see Dkt. No. 47, which Senior District Judge A. Joe Fish has referred to 

the undersigned magistrate judge for recommendation, see Dkt. No. 48. The 

undersigned issues the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendation. 

Background

 Plaintiff seeks to renew a default judgment that he was awarded on June 6, 

2005 against Defendants Gary Reeves, Victor Noval, Joseph Medawar, StarBrand 

Holdings Corp. a/k/a StarBrand Holdings, L.L.C. (“StarBrand”), Calleo Gourmet 

Coffees, Inc. (“Calleo”), Ken Johnson, Ken Johnson and/or Calleo Gourmet Coffees, 

Inc. d/b/a Kicks Coffee Café (“Kicks”), Calleo Gourmet Coffees, L.L.C., and Sweet 

Lorraine Productions, Inc. (“SLP”). See Dkt. No. 41. Plaintiff elected to recover fraud 

damages and waived his breach of contract claims. See id. The Court awarded 

Plaintiff $175,000 in actual economic damages; $375,000 in exemplary damages; 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01875-G Document 49 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID 237
 2

$16,770.80 in pre-judgment interest at the rate of 5.75% under the Texas Finance 

Code §§ 304.101-04; and post-judgment interest under the Texas Finance Code § 

304.003. See id.

 The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to renew a money 

judgment should be granted by writ of execution. 

Legal Standards and Analysis for Renewal of Judgment

 Federal law generally directs a federal court to look to state law when 

enforcing a money judgment. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1962, every judgment rendered by a 

district court within a state is a lien to the same extent and under the same 

conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in that state and ceases to 

be a lien in the same manner and time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1962. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 69(a) provides that a money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution 

and that the procedure on execution must accord with the procedure of the state 

where the federal court is located. See FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1). 

 Texas law permits a judgment creditor to prolong the life of a judgment 

indefinitely by merely having writs of execution timely issued every 10 years. See 

TAPSS, L.L.C. v. Nunez Co., 368 B.R. 575 (W.D. Tex. 2005). In Texas, a judgment is 

enforceable so long as a writ of execution is issued within 10 years after judgment is 

rendered, and, if a writ of execution is issued within those 10 years, a second writ 

may be issued at any time within 10 years after the first writ is issued. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 34.001. 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01875-G Document 49 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID 238
 3

 Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 34.001, Plaintiff’s motion to 

renew a money judgment should be granted. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment 

on June 6, 2005, see Dkt. No. 41, and enforced his money judgment within 10 years 

of June 6, 2005 by filing his motion to renew the judgment on May 15, 2014 against 

all Defendants, see Dkt. No. 47, and by filing an abstract of judgment on February 

6, 2007, see Dkt. No. 43, and September 16, 2003, see Dkt. No. 46, against Johnson. 

 Plaintiff now seeks $334,649.13 in postjudgment interest on his $541,780.80 

money judgment for a total renewed judgment of $876,429.93. However, Texas law 

on postjudgment interest provides for an amount different than the amount that 

Plaintiff seeks. Pursuant to the 2005 judgment, postjudgment interest is calculated 

under Texas Finance Code §§ 304.003 and 304.006. Section 304.003 provides that a 

money judgment, including court costs and prejudgment interest, earns 

postjudgment interest at the rate determined by the consumer credit commissioner. 

See TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.003. The postjudgment interest rate was 6.75% in 

November 2005. See State of Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, 

Historical Interest Rate Summaries–Judgment, 

http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/int_rates/Judgment%20Rate%20Summaries/July

%2014%20Judgment%20Rate%20Summary.pdf (last visited Aug. 5, 2014). Section 

304.006 provides that postjudgment interest compounds annually. See TEX. FIN.

CODE § 304.006. 

To calculate the total renewed judgment, the Court must calculate annual 

compound interest of 6.75% on a $541,780.80 money judgment entered against 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01875-G Document 49 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID 239
 4

Defendants on November 28, 2005. The formula for determining the renewed 

judgment amount is A = P(1 + r)n. 

P is the principal (the 2005 money judgment) 

r is the annual rate of interest 

n is the number of years the amount has accrued 

A is the amount of money accumulated after n years, including interest 

P = $541,780.80 

r = 6.75% 

n = 8 years (which have passed since November 28, 2005) 

A = $541,780.80(1 + 6.75%)8

A = $541,780.80(1.0675)8 

A = $541.780.80(1.686331954458677) 

A = $913,622.28 

Thus, the money judgment against Defendants should be renewed in the 

amounts set forth below. 

a. Total Judgment: $541,780.80 

b. Costs after Judgment: $0 

c. Subtotal (add a and b): $0 

d. Credits after Judgment: $0 

e. Subtotal (subtract d from c): $0 

f. Interest after Judgment: $371,841.48 

g. Fee for filing renewal application: $0 

h. Total Renewed Judgment (add, e, f and g): $913,622.28 

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew Judgment [Dkt. No. 47] should be granted, and 

the Court should issue a writ of execution on the judgment in the amounts provided 

above. 

 A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01875-G Document 49 Filed 08/05/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID 240
 5

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that 

merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate 

judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved 

party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate 

judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of 

plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 

1996). 

DATED: August 5, 2014 

 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01875-G Document 49 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID 241