Court Opinion

ID: 4255243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-15 20:30:16.429403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:51:57.526239
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                                NO. 09-18-00009-CV
                            ____________________

     MIDANI, HINKLE & COLE, LLP, DAVID HUTCHINS, MARK O.
      MIDANI AND HOWRY, BREEN & HERMAN, LLP, Appellant

                                          V.

                          ELIZABETH SMITH, Appellee
_______________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 172nd District Court
                           Jefferson County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. E-197,802
________________________________________________________________________

                                       ORDER

       Midani, Hinkle & Cole, LLP and Mark O. Midani, Appellants, filed a motion

to vacate or, in the alternative, to stay the trial court’s order of contempt, requiring

payment of costs, because the trial court signed the order after the underlying

judgment was superseded.

      The appellee, Elizabeth Smith, requested post-judgment discovery from Mark

O. Midani. Midani objected on the ground that the judgment would be superseded.

                                           1
Smith moved to compel post-judgment discovery responses. On February 13, 2018,

the trial court ordered Midani and Midani, Hinkle and Cole, LLP to respond to

Smith’s post-judgment discovery by February 21, 2018, unless a valid supersedeas

bond was made by that date. A supersedeas bond was signed on February 21, 2018

and filed on February 23, 2018. On February 28, 2018, Midani filed a motion to stay

execution. On March 6, 2018, the trial court held Midani and Midani, Hinkle and

Cole, LLP in contempt and ordered them to pay to Smith’s counsel $2,250.00 by

March 16, 2018 as costs related to the motion to compel.

      Enforcement of a judgment must be suspended if the judgment is superseded.

Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(f). A party may seek appellate review of the trial court’s

determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement by filing a motion with

the appellate court. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)(1). The appellate court may issue

temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights. See Tex. R. App. P.

24.4(c).

      The Court finds that the judgment has been superseded. Therefore, all

enforcement must cease. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(f). It is, therefore, ORDERED

that the trial court’s order of March 6, 2018, which held Appellants in contempt and

required them to pay $2,250.00 to Smith’s attorney, and the trial court’s order of

                                         2
February 13, 2018, which compelled Appellants to respond to post-judgment

discovery, are STAYED until our mandate issues or until further order of this Court.

      ORDER ENTERED March 14, 2018.

                                                    PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         3