1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-19-00279-CV 

________________

BBX OPERATING, LLC, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN FLUORITE, INC., GEOSOUTHERN ENERGY PARTNERS, 

LP, GEOSOUTHERN ENERGY CORP., and COMPASS BANK D/B/A

BBVA COMPASS, Appellees

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1st District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 36735

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BBX Operating, LLC appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment in favor of

American Fluorite, Inc., GeoSouthern Energy Partners, LP, and GeoSouthern 

Energy Corp. (collectively, “GeoSouthern”) garnishing the total amount of 

$2,436,547.65 from a BBX Compass Bank account. In one issue BBX asks whether 

the trial court erred by issuing final judgment for garnishment along with underlying 
2

writs and orders where GeoSouthern failed to show entitlement to garnishment under 

Texas Law. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

Background

The litigation giving rise to this appeal involves a protracted dispute over the 

payment of oil and gas revenues by former operator, BBX, to working interest 

owner, GeoSouthern. In companion case number 09-19-00278-CV, GeoSouthern 

sued BBX for payment of these revenues asserting a claim for breach of contract, a 

Texas Natural Resource Code claim, and seeking declaratory judgment for 

enforcement of a Rule 11 Agreement and interpretation of the parties’ various joint 

development agreements. In that case, the trial court granted two partial motions for 

summary judgment, followed by a third and final summary judgment, which 

incorporated its prior partial summary judgment orders. Before final resolution of 

the companion case, GeoSouthern filed two verified prejudgment applications for 

writs of garnishment pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 

63.001 against a BBX Compass Bank account holding the oil and gas revenues.

First Verified Application for Pre-Judgment Writ of Garnishment

On October 5, 2017, prior to entry of a final judgment in the companion case, 

GeoSouthern filed its first “Verified Application for Pre-Judgment Writ of 

Garnishment of Revenue Funds Held by BBX as Former Operator in BBVA 

Compass Revenue Account” seeking to garnish $1,714,547 in collected but unpaid 
3

oil and gas revenues from certain oil and gas wells in which GeoSouthern owned a 

working interest. In that application, GeoSouthern asserted that the amount was (1)

“liquidated, just, due, and unpaid[,]” (2) that within GeoSouthern’s “knowledge and 

after reasonable inquiry, [BBX] possesses property in Texas, but does not possess 

such property in Texas subject to execution that is sufficient to satisfy the liquidated 

amount owed[,]” and (3) GeoSouthern was “not seeking to injure or harass

[Compass Bank] or [BBX] by applying for a writ of garnishment.” GeoSouthern 

supported its first application with an affidavit of GeoSouthern’s General Land 

Manager Doug Dahmann and deposition testimony from BBX Corporate 

Representative John Gaines. Specifically, Gaines testified that through July 2017, 

after netting GeoSouthern’s joint-interest billing amounts owed to BBX by 

GeoSouthern, BBX owed to and withheld from GeoSouthern revenue amounts 

totaling $1,714,547. Additionally, GeoSouthern included the trial court’s first partial 

summary judgment order declaring that BBX was indebted to GeoSouthern for that 

amount for revenues collected by BBX but withheld from payment to GeoSouthern 

for the time period from October 2016 through July 2017. The trial court signed the 

first “Order for Issuance of Prejudgment Writ of Garnishment” for the requested 

amount in the Compass Bank account.

In response, BBX moved to dissolve the prejudgment writ of garnishment. In 

its motion to dissolve, BBX argued that: (1) Texas law prohibited the issuance of 
4

writs of garnishment on judgments that are not final, and the partial summary 

judgment order made the basis of the application was not final; and (2) GeoSouthern 

failed to meet its burden for providing specific grounds and facts justifying the writ. 

GeoSouthern countered the motion to dissolve, asserting that a “prejudgment writ of 

garnishment” by its very name does not require a final judgment and that it followed 

the procedures outlined by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 658. Ultimately, the trial 

court denied BBX’s motion to dissolve.

Second Application for Pre-Judgment Writ of Garnishment

On April 25, 2018, GeoSouthern filed its “Verified Application for Second 

Pre-Judgment Writ of Garnishment of Revenue Funds Held by BBX as Former 

Operator in BBVA Compass Revenue Account,” pursuant to Texas Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code section 63.001. GeoSouthern sought to garnish an additional 

$722,000 based on testimony John Gaines provided in a bankruptcy hearing

pertaining to a BBX-related entity, Trinity River Resources. GeoSouthern again 

asserted the amount was (1) “liquidated, just, due, and unpaid[,]” (2) that “[w]ithin 

[GeoSouthern’s] knowledge, [BBX] does not possess property in Texas subject to 

execution sufficient to satisfy the debt[,]” and (3) it is “not seeking to injure or harass

[Compass Bank] or [BBX] by applying for a [second and additional] writ of 

garnishment.” 
5

In support of its second application, GeoSouthern included BBX Corporate 

Representative John Gaines’s testimony from a bankruptcy hearing, the deposition

testimony of BBX Accountant Laurel Vance, the first partial summary judgment 

order, and Doug Dahmann’s affidavit. Gaines testified in the bankruptcy proceeding

that since the first garnishment proceeding, it was his opinion that BBX owed 

GeoSouthern an additional $722,000 in revenues after GeoSouthern’s joint-interest 

billings were netted. Gaines also testified he believed there were sufficient funds in 

the revenue account to cover GeoSouthern’s revenues and that of another working 

interest owner.

The trial court granted GeoSouthern’s second application and entered its 

“Second and Additional Order for Issuance of Prejudgment Writ of Garnishment,” 

which garnished the additional $722,000 from the BBX Compass Bank revenue 

account. BBX did not move to dissolve the second writ of garnishment. Thereafter, 

GeoSouthern moved for entry of final judgment. BBX responded to the motion for 

entry of final judgment, contending the trial court improperly issued the writs of 

garnishment in the absence of a final judgment and that GeoSouthern “failed to meet 

[its] burden to ‘state the grounds for issuing the writ and the specific facts relied’ on 

‘to warrant the required findings by the court’” pursuant to Texas Civil Procedure 

Rule 658. The trial court entered a final judgment that BBX owes GeoSouthern not 

less than $2,436,547.65 pursuant to the court’s final summary judgment order in the 
6

companion case. The final judgment stated that “[a]t the time Compass Bank was 

served with the Writs, Compass Bank was indebted to BBX in the total amount of 

not less than $2,436,547.65[.]”

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to dissolve a garnishment for 

an abuse of discretion. See Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. ICO, Inc., 230 S.W.3d 702, 

705 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (outlining standard of 

review); see also Pallida, LLC v. Uballe, No. 03-18-00365-CV, 2018 WL 6816680, 

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 28, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). A trial court “abuses 

its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding 

principles.” In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. 2008) (citation 

omitted). 

Analysis

BBX challenges the validity of the trial court’s prejudgment writs of 

garnishment and subsequent final judgment based on those writs. Specifically, BBX 

contends that GeoSouthern failed to meet the statutory requirements by failing to 

show: (1) the garnishment was for a debt; (2) that it was due, just, and unpaid; (3) 

BBX does not possess property in Texas sufficient to satisfy the debt; and (4) the 

garnishment is not sought to injure or harass BBX.
7

A plaintiff may file an application for writ of garnishment at the 

commencement of suit or any time during its pendency. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 658; see

also In re ATW Invs., Inc., No. 04-17-00045-CV, 2017 WL 1066803, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Mar. 22, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting “[a] 

plaintiff may file an application for writ of garnishment while his lawsuit is 

pending[]”). The application shall be supported by affidavits, comply with all 

statutory grounds, state the grounds for issuing the writ, and all facts the plaintiff 

relied upon to warrant the court’s findings. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 658. Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code section 63.001(2) provides one method whereby a party 

can obtain a writ of garnishment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001(2). 

A writ of garnishment is available if 

(2) a plaintiff sues for a debt and makes an affidavit stating that:

(A) the debt is just, due, and unpaid;

(B) within the plaintiff’s knowledge, the defendant does not 

possess property in Texas subject to execution sufficient to 

satisfy the debt; and

(C) the garnishment is not sought to injure the defendant or the 

garnishee[.]

Id. “Section 63.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code states what the 

plaintiff must show to the court in order to obtain a pre-judgment writ, and Rule 

658 guides the plaintiff in how it can show the statutory requirements of section 

63.001 based on a belief.” Almanza Bus. Grp., LLC v. CBI Logistic Servs., L.L.C., 

No. 04-18-00321-CV, 2019 WL 2110120, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 15, 
8

2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (emphasis original). “No writ shall issue before final 

judgment except upon written order of the court after a hearing, which may be ex 

parte.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 658.

Garnishment is considered summary and harsh, because a debtor’s property 

may be impounded before a judgment is taken against him. Beggs v. Fite, 106 

S.W.2d 1039, 1042 (Tex. 1937). Accordingly, a garnishment order must strictly 

comply with the statute. See id.; Harper v. Spencer & Assocs., P.C., 446 S.W.3d 53, 

56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.) 2014, pet. denied) (explaining “[t]hrough strict 

compliance with garnishment statutes” garnishment plaintiff steps into debtor’s 

shoes as to garnishee). When a plaintiff’s suit arises out of contract and the demand 

is liquidated, garnishment may issue. See Cleveland v. San Antonio Bldg. & Loan 

Ass’n, 223 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex. 1949). Liquidated means “the claim is not 

contingent, is capable of being definitely ascertained by the usual means of evidence 

and does not rest in the discretion of the jury.” In re ATW Invs., Inc., 2017 WL 

1066803, at *2 (citing Cleveland, 223 S.W.2d at 228).

Debt

During the pendency of the underlying lawsuit on its breach of contract cause 

of action for non-payment of revenues, GeoSouthern filed two applications for 

prejudgment writs of garnishment. These revenue amounts were readily 

ascertainable, with BBX’s records and own representatives testifying to the amounts 
9

owed through specific time periods, and their determination did not rest within the 

jury’s discretion. Accordingly, the revenue amounts were not contingent.

Just, Due, and Unpaid

Section 63.001(2) requires that a plaintiff make an affidavit that the debt is 

“just, due, and unpaid.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001(2)(A). In the 

first application, GeoSouthern alleged its claims were “liquidated, just, due, and

unpaid.” As support for the existence of this debt, in its first application, 

GeoSouthern cited to (1) the first partial summary judgment award of $1,714,547 

for the sale of hydrocarbons between October 2016 and July 2017 that remained 

unpaid and (2) the deposition testimony of BBX Corporate Representative John 

Gaines that the revenue owed to GeoSouthern was $1,714,547.65. GeoSouthern

attached exhibits to its application including the trial court’s partial summary 

judgment order, GeoSouthern General Land Manager Doug Dahmann’s affidavit,

and BBX Corporate Representative Gaines’s deposition testimony confirming the 

amount of revenues owed to GeoSouthern after netting. Dahmann averred that BBX 

was indebted to GeoSouthern in the liquidated amount of $1,714,547.65 through 

July 2017, which has not been satisfied. He further specifically averred that 

GeoSouthern’s claim was “just, due, and unpaid.” Dahmann also averred that in his 

capacity as GeoSouthern’s “General Manager – Land[,]” he had personal knowledge 

of the facts set out in his affidavit. There was no dispute over title to the unpaid oil 
10

and gas revenues. BBX withheld such revenues after a dispute arose over other 

predevelopment expenses were incurred by BBX and GeoSouthern refused to pay 

BBX. The facts pleaded in the first prejudgment application and Dahmann’s 

affidavit met the requirements of 163.001(2). See id.

In its second application for prejudgment writ of garnishment, GeoSouthern 

sought to garnish an additional $722,000 in revenues BBX owed from August 2017 

to and including January 2018. GeoSouthern likewise pleaded in its verified second 

application that the amount was “liquidated, just, due, and unpaid.” GeoSouthern

pointed to facts supporting this request, such as the first prejudgment writ of 

garnishment and additional testimony from BBX employees. GeoSouthern noted 

that Gaines provided testimony in a bankruptcy hearing for a related BBX entity that 

BBX owed GeoSouthern an additional $722,000 and that BBX’s accountant, Laurel 

Vance, likewise testified that all GeoSouthern’s joint-interest billings had been 

netted and were current, and that its remaining revenues had been deposited in 

BBX’s revenue account. The exhibits GeoSouthern attached to its second 

application included the trial court’s partial summary judgment order, Laurel 

Vance’s deposition testimony regarding the revenues owed to GeoSouthern after 

netting and where they were deposited, BBX Corporate Representative Gaines’s 

bankruptcy hearing testimony, and another affidavit from GeoSouthern General 

Land Manager Doug Dahmann. Dahmann averred that BBX was indebted to 
11

GeoSouthern in the additional liquidated amount of $722,000 from August 2017 

through January 2018, which had not been satisfied. In support of the second 

prejudgment application for writ of garnishment, Dahmann again averred that 

GeoSouthern’s claim was “just, due, and unpaid.” He also attested that in his 

capacity as GeoSouthern’s “General Manager – Land[,]” he had personal knowledge 

of the facts set forth. The facts pleaded in the second prejudgment application and 

Dahmann’s affidavit also met the first of 163.001(2)’s requirements. See id.

Both applications for prejudgment writ of garnishment and supporting 

affidavits satisfy the “just, due, and unpaid” requirement of section 163.001(2)(A). 

Property in Texas Subject to Execution Sufficient to Satisfy Debt

BBX contends that GeoSouthern had to prove that BBX did not possess 

sufficient property in Texas to satisfy the debt, and GeoSouthern must provide 

specific facts it relied on. We disagree with BBX’s contention. The statute expressly 

provides that the plaintiff must file an affidavit that avers that “within the plaintiff’s

knowledge, the defendant does not possess property in Texas subject to execution 

sufficient to satisfy the debt[.]” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001(2)(B). 

In both applications, GeoSouthern pleaded that to its “knowledge and after 

reasonable inquiry, [BBX] possesses property in Texas, but does not possess such 

property in Texas subject to execution that is sufficient to satisfy the liquidated 

amount owed.” Likewise, GeoSouthern supported both applications with affidavits
12

from Dahmann averring that “[b]ased upon information . . . GeoSouthern believes 

BBX possesses property in Texas, but does not possess such property in Texas 

subject to execution that is sufficient to satisfy the liquidated amount” owed. Each 

of those affidavits described the information GeoSouthern relied upon to support this 

averment, including discovery responses, BBX bank records, and testimony of 

specific BBX witnesses.

The pleadings and affidavit filed by GeoSouthern in support of the 

garnishment met the requirements of establishing that it did not have knowledge that 

BBX possessed property in Texas subject to execution sufficient to satisfy the debt 

and the information relied upon in reaching that conclusion. See id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 

658. In its motion to dissolve, BBX failed to present any evidence that it possessed 

property in Texas subject to execution sufficient to satisfy the debt that would 

counter GeoSouthern’s affidavits.

Garnishment Not Sought to Injure

BBX asserts GeoSouthern failed to show that the garnishment was not sought 

to injure or harass. However, GeoSouthern stated in both applications that the writ 

was not sought to injure or harass BBX and again provided affidavit testimony from 

Dahmann that GeoSouthern “is not seeking to injure or harass [Compass Bank] or

BBX by applying for a writ of garnishment Section 63.001(2)(C) requires an 

affidavit supporting the application that states “the garnishment is not sought to 
13

injure the defendant or garnishee[.]” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 

63.001(2)(C). Accordingly, GeoSouthern complied with this statutory requirement. 

GeoSouthern strictly complied with the three statutory requirements when it 

sought these prejudgment writs of garnishment. See id. § 63.001(2); Tex. R. Civ. P. 

658. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying BBX’s motion to dissolve 

and challenge to the motion for entry of judgment on the prejudgment writs of 

garnishment. We overrule BBX’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We conclude that the trial court did not err by issuing pre-judgment writs of 

garnishment pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 63.001(2) 

when GeoSouthern followed the statutory requirements by averring BBX owed it an 

unpaid debt that was just and due in an amount certain, it had no knowledge of other 

property BBX possessed in Texas subject to execution that could satisfy the debt, 

and the garnishment applications were not filed to injure or harass BBX.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment garnishing the total amount of 

$2,436,547.65 owed to GeoSouthern in unpaid revenues from BBX’s Compass Bank 

account. 

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice
14

Submitted on June 10, 2021

Opinion Delivered July 29, 2021

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.