Court Opinion

ID: 9384512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 10:07:17.73455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.954096
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00160-CV

                                         In re Natin Paul

                   ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator Natin Paul has filed an emergency petition for writs of habeas corpus and

mandamus challenging a contempt order issued against him by the district court. For reasons

explained below, we will modify the contempt order but will otherwise deny relief.

                                        BACKGROUND 1

               Paul and several corporate entities that he controls are defendants in ongoing

litigation with the Roy F. and JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation, the Real Party in Interest in this

case (Mitte). In that litigation, Paul and his corporate entities have been found to be jointly and

severally liable to Mitte for $1,909,125.20.

               On May 13, 2022, the district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)

against Paul and his corporate entities. In the TRO, the district court noted that Paul had posted a

       1
           Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts of the case and its procedural
history, and because those facts are recited in greater detail in this Court’s earlier opinions, see,
e.g., Paul v. Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation, No. 03-21-00502-CV, 2023 WL 1806101
(Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 8, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); WC 1st & Trinity, LP v. Roy F. &
JoAnn Cole Mitte Found., No. 03-19-00799-CV, 2021 WL 4465995 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept.
30, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.), we do not recite them here except as necessary to advise the
parties of the Court’s decision and the basic reasons for it, see Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, 47.4.
cash deposit in the amount of $329,652.66, superseding the judgment in part, but that the

corporate entities had not posted a supersedeas bond or equivalent cash deposit. The court found

“that if not restrained, the judgment debtors [were] likely to dissipate or transfer assets to avoid

satisfaction of the Judgment.” To prevent that, the TRO prohibited Paul and his corporate

entities “from dissipating or transferring any of their assets for less than fair value . . . until

further order from this Court.” The TRO also provided that “on the fourteenth day from entry of

this Order, Defendants must each notify Ray Chester, counsel for Plaintiff, of each transfer,

conveyance, or dissipation of assets in excess of $25,000 made since the entry of this Order.”

The TRO further specified that “[t]his injunction does not prohibit Defendants’ use, transfer,

conveyance, or dissipation of assets for fair value in the normal course of business,” and it

specifically defined “assets” to “include any property or thing of value, including tangible

personal property, intangible personal property (including, but not limited to cash,

cryptocurrency, accounts receivable, notes receivable, stocks, bonds, and other securities, and

partnership ownership interests), and real property.”

                 On June 10, 2022, the district court issued a “Post-Judgment Injunction Under

TRAP 24.2(d)” (Injunction), which contained similar terms to those of the TRO but also

specified that

       [O]n the 1st day of each month from entry of this Order, Defendants must each
       file a sworn report to the Court, with notice to all parties, listing each transfer,
       conveyance, or dissipation of assets in excess of $25,000 made over the course of
       the prior month, or, if applicable, that no such transfers or conveyances
       were made.

The Injunction provided that it “shall continue until either the Judgment is paid in full or until

further order of this Court.”

                                                 2
               On September 2, 2022, Mitte filed a motion for show-cause order, asking that

Paul “be held in civil contempt” for disobeying the Injunction. Specifically, Mitte alleged that

“[n]o Defendant has filed a sworn report . . . on July 1, 2022 when the first such report under this

injunction was due, or on August 1, 2022, when the second such report under this injunction was

due, or on any other date.” Mitte added that “[i]t stands to reason that given Mr. Paul’s

demonstrated failure to comply with this injunction, he is likely to dissipate or transfer assets in

violation of the injunction as well. In fact, his failure to report transactions may be an effort to

cover up such dissipation.” Mitte concluded that “[t]o purge himself of contempt,” Paul must

“file sworn reports on his own personal behalf, [and] on behalf of [his corporate entities]

covering the following periods: June 10, 2022-June 30, 2022; July 1, 2022-July 31, 2022, and

any future calendar month period between now and the date he purges himself of contempt.”

               On October 4, 2022, the district court, after considering the motion, issued a

show-cause order. In its order, the court noted that the motion was directed “at the disobedience

of the portion of the Injunction that commands” Paul and his corporate entities to “file a sworn

report to the Court, with notice to all parties, listing each transfer, conveyance, or dissipation of

assets in excess of $25,000 made over the course of the prior month, or, if applicable, that no

such transfers or conveyances were made.” Finding that the motion was “proper, and states

probable grounds for contempt,” the court ordered Paul to appear before the court on

November 9, 2022, “to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of Court for

disobedience of the Injunction as stated above.”

               On November 4, 2022, Paul filed the sworn reports required by the Injunction,

and he stated therein that he did not transfer, convey, or dissipate any assets in excess of $25,000

for the time periods specified in each monthly report. Paul then appeared at the November 9

                                                   3
hearing and testified as to his understanding of the Injunction’s requirements and whether he had

made any transfers in violation of the Injunction. Among other topics discussed at the hearing,

Mitte asked Paul questions relating to a $100,000 transfer that Paul had allegedly made to a

professional basketball player on June 22, 2022.           Paul’s counsel objected to this line of

questioning, arguing that it was not relevant to the purpose of the hearing and that Paul was

“entitled to see the information on which [counsel for Mitte] is relying.” The district court

overruled the objection, and Paul continued testifying about this and other matters.

                At the conclusion of the hearing, Mitte argued that Paul should be held in civil

contempt for failing to file the sworn reports. Mitte also argued that Paul should be held in

criminal contempt for perjury and making the $100,000 transfer, if it was “not for fair value” in

violation of the Injunction. However, Mitte added, “Our research indicates that Mr. Paul is

entitled to an opportunity to have another day in court on that and present any defenses he has to

that criminal contempt.” To that end, Mitte had drafted a second show-cause order for the

district court to sign, along with a second motion for show-cause order.

                The district court announced that it was going to recess the hearing until the

following week and that it would sign the show-cause order. At Mitte’s request, the district court

also ordered that by noon on the Wednesday before the next hearing, Paul provide Mitte with all

of Paul’s personal bank statements from June onward, “for the purpose of determining whether

or not Mr. Paul is in contempt of court . . . . both civil and criminal, as to whether or not he has

filed false statements under oath or made false statements under oath in court,” and to determine

“whether the reports are incorrect in stating that there [has] been no transfer, conveyance, or

dissipation of assets . . . in excess of $25,000 . . . for less than fair value, which we’ll require Mr.

Paul to be able to determine the purpose of the transfer and the value he received in response.”

                                                   4
Counsel for Mitte then produced his proposed show-cause order and revised the order in

consultation with counsel for Paul. The court then made its own revisions to the order, signed

and dated the order, handed the signed order to both Paul and Paul’s counsel, and recessed

the proceedings.

               In Mitte’s November 9 motion for show-cause order, Mitte argued that the court

had been presented with evidence at the hearing that Paul had “in fact made at least one transfer

in excess of $25,000,” which was contrary to Paul’s testimony that he had not made any transfer,

conveyance, or dissipation of assets in excess of $25,000 since the Injunction had been in effect.

According to Mitte, this evidence “established that Mr. Paul’s statements in his sworn reports

were false and that his testimony concerning his lack of such transfers was false. . . . The only

reasonable inference is that Mr. Paul made knowingly false statements under oath and under

penalty of perjury, with the intent to deceive this Court and his litigation adversary, the judgment

creditor.” Mitte continued,

       Mr. Paul has repeatedly flouted the authority of this Court and obstructed it in the
       performance of its duties. After blatantly and without excuse disobeying the
       Court’s Injunction until days before the show-cause hearing, Mr. Paul provided
       the court with false reports and then compounded the issue by lying under oath.
       Mr. Paul’s false reports violate the Injunction, which Ordered him to disclose
       each transfer, conveyance or dissipation of assets in excess of $25,000, and his
       false testimony to the Court obstructed its ability to monitor compliance with its
       orders. If the Court finds that Mr. Paul made false statements in either his sworn
       reports or his testimony at the November 9, 2022 hearing, Plaintiff requests that
       after notice and hearing he be found in criminal contempt and confined in the
       Travis County jail for a period deemed appropriate by the Court.

The motion then referenced the $100,000 transfer specifically:

       At the hearing, the Court was presented with evidence that Mr. Paul made a

                                                 5
       transfer on June 22, 2022, of $100,000 to a third party. When confronted with
       this evidence, Mr. Paul was unable to demonstrate that the transfer was made for
       fair value. Thus, the transfer in question violated the express terms of the
       Injunction. If the Court finds that Mr. Paul made a transfer in disobedience of the
       Injunction, Plaintiff requests that after notice and hearing he be found in criminal
       contempt and confined in the Travis County jail for a period deemed appropriate
       by the Court.

               The district court’s November 9 show-cause order described Mitte’s motion as

seeking to have Paul “held in and punished for contempt of court for”: (1) disobedience of the

Injunction in making false statements in his sworn reports, (2) making false testimony under

oath, and (3) disobedience of the Injunction in making a prohibited transfer for less than fair

value. The court then went on to summarize the allegations in greater detail:

       Specifically, with respect to the Injunction, Mr. Paul was commanded to, on the
       1st day of each month from entry of the June 10, 2022 Injunction until the
       Judgment is paid in full or the injunction is lifted by further order of the Court,
       file a sworn report to the Court, with notice to all parties, listing each transfer,
       conveyance, or dissipation of assets in excess of $25,000 made over the course of
       the prior month, or, if applicable, that no such transfers or conveyances were
       made. In Mr. Paul’s sworn reports submitted to this Court, Plaintiff alleges that
       Mr. Paul made false statements.

       Further, in the November 9, 2022 hearing before this Court, Mr. Paul offered
       sworn testimony that in the time period that the Injunction has been in effect he
       had not made any transfer, conveyance, or dissipation of assets in excess of
       $25,000. Plaintiff alleges that the sworn statement appears to be false.

       Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Paul made a transfer of $100,000 for less than
       fair value on or about June 22, 2022 in disobedience of the Injunction.

Based on these allegations, the court ordered Paul to appear in person on November 17, 2022,

“to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of Court for disobedience of the

Injunction and making false testimony under oath to the Court.”

                                                6
               At the November 17 hearing, Paul provided additional testimony regarding the

$100,000 transfer. Paul acknowledged making a payment of $100,000 to an NBA player but

claimed that he did not know until the November 9 hearing that failing to report this payment

violated the Injunction. Paul also testified that he did not personally owe this player money but

that one of his companies did.

              The district court admitted additional evidence at the hearing relating to Paul’s

bank accounts. Paul testified that he had only two personal bank accounts, a Chase account with

a balance of $5,800 at the time of the hearing, and an RBC Wealth account with a balance of $0.

However, Mitte introduced evidence showing that Paul had received $10 million from the

closing of a sale in bankruptcy court in March 2022 and that the sale had also resulted in

approximately $100 million being transferred to a Horizon Bank account in the name of “Travis

County Exchange Corporation as qualified intermediary for Natin Paul.” Paul denied that this

bank account was one of his personal accounts.

              Mitte also questioned Paul about a transfer of $963,323.18 from the Horizon Bank

account to Westlake Industries, another company owned by Paul. When asked if he had any

explanation for this transaction, Paul testified, “I’m not familiar with—one, I didn’t come here

prepared for Westlake Industries, LLC.” Then, after being shown a bank statement showing

other transfers to Westlake Industries and in response to a question about those transfers, Paul

testified, “I wouldn’t have knowledge on probably any of these transactions without having

reviewed them as I—you know, I don’t handle the accounting for Westlake Industries and have

not reviewed this document prior to today.” Copies of bank statements for Westlake Industries

were admitted into evidence, and one of the statements showed a transfer of $963,323.18 from

                                                 7
“Horizon Bank . . . B/O [By Order of] Paul, Natin” to Westlake Industries, made on June 10,

2022, the date the district court signed the Injunction.

               At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court took the matter under

advisement. On March 10, 2023, the district court issued an order of contempt and commitment

for Paul, finding him in both civil and criminal contempt. Regarding the allegations of criminal

contempt, which are the subject of this proceeding, 2 the court found that Paul committed eight

violations:

       Violation 1: Mr. Paul made a transfer to an NBA player of $100,000 on June 22,
       2022, but in the late-filed report for June 2022, Mr. Paul intentionally failed to
       report the transfer. After being confronted with evidence of this transfer at the
       November 9, 2022, hearing, Mr. Paul equivocated, claiming not to remember such
       transfer, but then later reported the transaction on an amended report. To the
       extent that Mr. Paul made equivocal testimony concerning his lack of memory or
       awareness of the $100,000 transfer to the NBA player, the Court finds that this
       testimony is not credible.

       Violation 2: The $100,000 transfer was not made for fair value. Mr. Paul did not
       receive anything of value from the NBA player and Mr. Paul admitted he did not
       personally owe the NBA player any money. Mr. Paul was aware that the
       $100,000 transfer violated the Injunction, as a prohibited transfer not for
       fair value.

       Violation 3: Mr. Paul also ordered $963,323.18 of his funds (held by an escrow
       agent) to be transferred to a wholly owned business of his, Westlake Industries,
       on June 10, 2022, the date the Injunction was signed, but intentionally failed to
       report the transfer. This failure violated the Injunction, and if made prior to the
       signing of the Injunction, violated the Temporary Restraining Order.

       Violation 4: The $963,323.18 transfer was also not made for fair value. The
       Court’s finding is based on the timing of the transfer and the fact that Mr. Paul
       omitted it from his sworn report and then testified falsely concerning the transfer

       2
          Paul does not challenge the portions of the order involving civil contempt in this
proceeding and thus we need not discuss them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
                                                  8
       at the November 17 hearing. Mr. Paul also failed to provide credible evidence
       that the transfer was for fair value or that the Injunction did not require it to be
       reported. The Court finds that Mr. Paul’s testimony concerning this transfer was
       not credible. The Court finds that Mr. Paul was aware that the $963,323.18
       transfer violated the Injunction (and if made before the Injunction was signed,
       violated the earlier Temporary Restraining Order) as a prohibited transfer not for
       fair value.

       Violation 5: Mr. Paul failed to produce complete records of his bank accounts at
       the November 17, 2022, hearing after being ordered to do so by the Court.

       Violation 6: Filing a false sworn report, specifically stating “under penalty of
       perjury,” for June 2022 that no transfers over $25,000 were made that month
       when in fact at least two such transfers were made;

       Violation 7: Falsely testifying at the November 9, 2022 hearing that he made no
       transfers over $25,000 during June 2022; and

       Violation 8: Falsely testifying at the November 17, 2022, hearing concerning the
       number of bank accounts in his name or under his personal control.

Finding that Paul was “in contempt for each of the eight separate violations enumerated above,”

the court further concluded that:

       Natin Paul’s $963,323.18 transfer on June 10, 2022, and $100,000 transfer on
       June 22, 2022, violated the Injunction, and with respect to the June 10, 2022
       transfer, if made prior to the signing of the Injunction, violated the Temporary
       Restraining Order. Further those transfers by Natin Paul were intentional. The
       violations of the Injunction and the multiple acts of false testimony noted herein
       each constitute criminal contempt of court.

The court ordered that “[a]s punishment for each of the eight separate acts of criminal contempt,

Mr. Paul shall be confined to the Travis County Jail, commencing on March 15, 2023, for a term

of 10 days in jail. Each period of confinement shall run concurrently.”

                                                9
               On March 13, Paul filed an emergency motion for temporary relief and this

emergency petition for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus, challenging the portions of the

order involving criminal contempt. We granted the emergency motion to consider the merits of

Paul’s petition. See In re Paul, No. 03-23-00160-CV, 2023 WL 2505302 (Tex. App.—Austin

Mar. 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (per curiam order).

                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW

                “Because contempt orders are not appealable, they are reviewable only by writ of

mandamus or habeas corpus.” In re Janson, 614 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Tex. 2020). To be entitled to

mandamus relief, a relator must show that the district court clearly abused its discretion, i.e., its

decision was “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.”

In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding). To be entitled to

habeas relief, the trial court’s contempt order must be void, either because it was beyond the

power of the court to issue it or because it deprived the relator of his liberty without due process

of law.   In re Office of Att’y Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2013); Ex parte Barnett,

600 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex. 1980).

                                      GOVERNING LAW

               Contempt is “broadly defined” as “disobedience to or disrespect of a court by

acting in opposition to its authority.” In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig.

proceeding) (citing Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding)).

“[C]ontempt is a broad and inherent power of a court,” but that power is not unlimited. Id. A

person accused of contempt is entitled to due process of law, although the amount of due process

to which a person is entitled depends on the nature of the contempt alleged. See id.

                                                 10
               “Contempt may occur in the presence of a court (direct contempt), or outside the

court’s presence (constructive contempt).” Id. at 365 (citing Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686,

688 (Tex.1979) (orig. proceeding)); In re Hesse, 552 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2018, orig. proceeding). In a direct contempt proceeding, “the court has direct knowledge of the

facts which constitute the contemptuous conduct.” Hesse, 552 S.W.3d at 897. “The essence of

direct contempt in this situation is that the offending conduct obstructs or tends to obstruct the

proper functioning of the court and the administration of justice.” Id. (citing Ex parte Daniels,

722 S.W.2d 707, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)).

               “By way of contrast, constructive or indirect contempt involves actions that occur

outside the presence of the court which require testimony or the production of evidence

necessary to establish the occurrence of the allegedly contemptuous act.” Id. (citing Chambers,

898 S.W.2d at 259). “Contrary to acts of direct contempt, constructive contempt does not

generally relate to acts which interfere with or interrupt courtroom proceedings but is most often

characterized by a dispute between the parties to the litigation concerning the enforcement of a

court order or directive affecting the subject matter of the pending litigation.” Id.

               “The distinction between direct and constructive contempt is important because

due process requires different procedures for the adjudication of contempt and the imposition of

sanctions depending on the character of the contemptuous act and the nature of the sanctions

sought or imposed.” Id. “[A] person guilty of direct contempt is not entitled to the same

procedural safeguards as someone accused of constructive contempt.” Id. at 897-98. “In cases

of constructive contempt, where there are factual issues regarding the allegedly contemptuous

act, due process requires that the accused be afforded greater procedural rights.” Id. at 898. “For

example, due process requires that the accused be advised of the nature and occurrence of the

                                                 11
alleged contemptuous acts and have a reasonable opportunity to address those charges by way of

defense or explanation, including the right to the assistance of counsel.” Id.

               “Contempt is further classified into either civil or criminal contempt.” Reece,

341 S.W.3d at 365. “[C]ivil contempt is ‘remedial and coercive in nature’ . . . while criminal

contempt is punitive in nature—‘the contemnor is being punished for some completed act which

affronted the dignity and authority of the court.’” Id. (quoting Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d

542, 545 (Tex. 1976) (orig. proceeding)). “Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it

is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.”

Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). As such, “[m]any constitutional rights are accorded

criminal contemnors,” Werblud, 536 S.W.2d at 547, including the right to “full and unambiguous

notice of the accusation of contempt” charged, Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex. 1989).

“A contempt order rendered without such adequate notification is void.”                In re Davis,

305 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding); see Ex parte

Carney, 903 S.W.2d 345, 346-47 (Tex. 1995).

                                          DISCUSSION

               In his petition, Paul raises several arguments as to why he believes the criminal

contempt portions of the order are void. He argues that (1) opposing counsel improperly served

as “prosecutor” in the contempt proceedings; (2) the district court was biased against him; (3) he

did not have sufficient notice of the allegations against him; (4) there is insufficient evidence that

he engaged in “any act” of criminal contempt; (5) there is insufficient evidence that he

committed perjury; (6) the district court failed to provide notice and an additional hearing for the

perjury that Paul allegedly committed at the November 17 hearing; and (7) the district court

                                                 12
failed to conduct a separate sentencing hearing before imposing punishment, which Paul claims

denied him “the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to presence, and the right of

allocution.” We conclude that most of these contentions do not entitle Paul to any relief, and we

need not discuss those contentions. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d). However, we agree, in part,

with Paul’s argument that he did not have sufficient notice of the allegations to be tried, but only

with respect to the allegations that resulted in Violations 3, 4, and part of Violation 6.

               In Violation 3, the district court punished Paul for failing to report the

$963,323.18 transfer to Westlake Industries. In Violation 4, the court punished Paul for making

that $963,323.18 transfer “not for fair value.” And in Violation 6, the court punished Paul for

“filing a false sworn report, specifically stating ‘under penalty of perjury,’ for June 2022 that no

transfers over $25,000 were made that month when in fact at least two such transfers were

made,” the $100,000 transfer to the NBA player and the $963,323.18 transfer to Westlake

Industries. These were violations of either the TRO or the Injunction that occurred outside the

court’s presence and thus involved constructive criminal contempt. Accordingly, before Paul

could be held in contempt for these violations, due process required that Paul receive “full and

unambiguous notice” of these violations. See Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 262; Adell, 769 S.W.2d

at 521.

               The notice required in cases of constructive criminal contempt “should be by

show cause order or equivalent legal process personally served on the alleged contemnor, and it

should state when, how and by what means the defendant has been guilty of contempt.” Ex parte

Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. 1988) (citing Gordon, 584 S.W.2d at 688; Ex parte

Edgerly, 441 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex. 1969)). Reviewing courts look to both the show-cause

order and the motion for contempt filed by the complaining party to determine if sufficient notice

                                                  13
has been provided. See id.; Ex parte Jimenez, 737 S.W.2d 358, 360 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

1987, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Ex parte Gray, 654 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App.—Eastland

1983, orig. proceeding).

                Here, there is nothing in either Mitte’s motions for show-cause order or the

show-cause orders themselves that serve to notify Paul that he is being accused of making a

$963,323.18 transfer for less than fair value, failing to report that transfer, or filing a false report

stating that he did not make that transfer. The first time this transfer was mentioned was the

November 17, 2022 show-cause hearing, when Mitte questioned Paul about the transfer.

                This lack of notice is especially apparent when considering the notice that was

provided for the $100,000 transfer.       When that transfer was discussed at the November 9

show-cause hearing, counsel for Mitte acknowledged that Paul was “entitled to an opportunity to

have another day in court on that and present any defenses he has to that criminal contempt,” and

the district court recessed the hearing to give Paul an opportunity to defend against the charge.

Mitte’s November 9 motion for show-cause order referenced both the amount of the transfer and

the date on which it was made, and the show-cause order did the same. In contrast, no notice at

all was provided regarding the $963,323.18 transfer. Consequently, the portions of the order that

punish Paul for that particular transfer are void. See In re Rowe, 113 S.W.3d 749, 752-53 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Powers, No. 01-21-00466-CR,

2022 WL 16640631, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 3, 2022, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.).

                “If a portion of a contempt order is void while valid in all other respects, an

appellate court may strike the offending portion and otherwise deny relief.” In re Anascavage,

131 S.W.3d 108, 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Watson,

                                                  14
108 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding); see In re

Mayorga, 538 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); see also In re

Patillo, 32 S.W.3d 907, 909 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2000, orig. proceeding)

(“Where a trial court lists each failure to comply with an order separately and assesses a separate

punishment for each failure to comply, only the invalid portion of the contempt order is void and

the remainder of the contempt order is enforceable.”). Accordingly, we strike Violations 3 and 4

in their entirety from the contempt order and modify Violation 6 to reflect that Paul filed a false

report with respect to “at least one such transfer” instead of “at least two such transfers.” 3 We

also modify the order’s Finding of Fact 16 to reflect that the district court finds Paul in contempt

for “six” rather than “eight” separate violations, 4 strike the references to the $963,323.18 transfer

in the order’s Conclusion of Law 2 involving criminal contempt, 5 and modify the punishment

       3
           Thus, Violation 6 shall read:

                Filing a false sworn report, specifically stating “under penalty of
                perjury,” for June 2022 that no transfers over $25,000 were made
                that month when in fact at least one such transfer was made.
       4
           Thus, the Finding of Fact shall read:

                The Court specifically FINDS that Natin Paul is in contempt for
                each of the six separate violations enumerated above.
       5
           Thus, the Conclusion of Law shall read:

                Natin Paul’s $100,000 transfer on June 22, 2022, violated the
                Injunction. Further that transfer by Natin Paul was intentional.
                The violation of the Injunction and the multiple acts of false
                testimony noted herein each constitute criminal contempt of court.

                                                   15
portion of the order to reflect that Paul shall serve punishment for “six” rather than “eight”

separate acts of criminal contempt concurrently. 6

                                         CONCLUSION

                Having modified the order to remove the invalid portions of the order, we deny

Paul’s petition. 7 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We also vacate our March 14, 2023 temporary

order staying the district court’s order and remand this case to the district court to issue an

updated order of commitment.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Filed: March 31, 2023

       6
           Thus, the punishment portion of the order shall read:

                As punishment for each of the six separate acts of criminal
                contempt, Mr. Paul shall be confined to the Travis County Jail,
                commencing on [date], for a term of 10 days in jail. Each period
                of confinement shall run concurrently.
       7
           Paul does not challenge the portions of the order involving civil contempt in this
proceeding, and thus those portions of the order are not affected by this decision, including the
references to the $963,323.18 transfer in the civil contempt portions of the order.
                                                 16