Opinion ID: 795095
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Dispositive Error of Law

Text: 88 The error of law critical to our disposition of FG Hemisphere II is the conclusion that a determination that the foreign sovereign's property is not immune to execution necessarily, and without more, results in an order authorizing execution. This error is also among the reversible errors in FG Hemisphere I. 89 In restating its October 2004 order, the district court concluded that the royalty obligations were property located in the United States and used for commercial activity in the United States, thus satisfying the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and enabling the plaintiff to execute on said property. Therefore, it is Ordered that [FG Hemisphere]'s Application for Writs of Garnishment is Granted. This statement highlights what may be a common misapprehension of the law. The December 2004 order repeats this misinterpretation and misapplication of law: 90 [T]he Court determines that said obligations constitute property of the Congo and that SNPC has assets located in the United States, which have been used for commercial activity within the United States, therefore, satisfying the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and enabling the plaintiff to execute on said property. 91 Therefore, it is Ordered that plaintiff's Application for Writs of Garnishment is Granted. 92 Thus, the district court granted FG Hemisphere's applications for writs of garnishment as the consequence of its determination that the property satisfied the requirements of an exception to the FSIA's immunity from execution. 93 A finding that an exception to executional immunity applies is a finding that the court has jurisdiction over the garnishment action. This is not the same as concluding that execution is appropriate or that writs of garnishment should issue. As actions supplemental to or in aid of execution, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, garnishment actions are governed by state law to the extent it does not conflict with federal law. 4 Fed. R.Civ.P. 69(a); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 63.001-63.008 (providing for garnishment actions); Tex.R. Civ. P. 657-79 (same); Grenada Bank v. Willey, 694 F.2d 85, 87 n. 2 (5th Cir.1982) (A writ of execution cannot be the exclusive means of enforcing a judgment since [the State's] practice and procedure provides for garnishment.). 94 We note that there have been no findings whether the royalty interest and working interest are real property, intangible personal property, or both. Likewise, there has been no finding that the property is garnishable under Texas law. Application of an exception to immunity is but the first step, yet a very important step, that gives the district court jurisdiction to apply state law to determine whether it should authorize execution against the foreign sovereign's property. 95 Because the district court misinterpreted and misapplied § 1610(a), we reverse its December 2004 order authorizing execution against this property. The garnishment writs issued as a direct result of legal error. Therefore we remand the matter with instructions to dissolve the writs issued pursuant to this order. 5