Opinion ID: 45549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Af-Cap's Other Arguments Fail

Text: 16 Af-Cap also argues that the district court's holding contravenes the law of the case. [U]nlike res judicata, the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues that were actually decided, rather than all questions in the case that might have been decided, but were not. Alpha/Omega Ins. Servs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 272 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir.2001). An issue is actually decided if the court explicitly decided it or necessarily decided it by implication. Id. Af-Cap II only addressed whether the obligations at issue were immune from garnishment under FSIA. There is nothing in Af-Cap II that interprets state garnishment law. Therefore, the district court correctly questioned whether such an obligation could be garnishable in Texas. 17 Af-Cap also argues that, as a plaintiff in a garnishment action, it can step[ ] into the shoes of the Congo and elect to receive the royalty payments in cash. See Rowley v. Lake Area Nat'l Bank, 976 S.W.2d 715, 719 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). This reasoning, however, ignores the chronology of a garnishment proceeding. The writs at issue must first capture a debt before a garnishor can step into the shoes of the creditor. If this were not the rule, would-be garnishors could manipulate assets so that a writ could attach. Here, the writs failed to capture anything, given that the obligation is nonmonetary. Therefore, Af-Cap has no authority to request payment in cash.