Court Opinion

ID: 9892277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 07:09:14.675967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:49.130125
License: Public Domain

In the
                    Court of Appeals
            Second Appellate District of Texas
                     at Fort Worth
                   ___________________________
                       No. 02-23-00378-CV
                  ___________________________

IN RE REPLENISH HYDRATION LLC AND BOULDEN WELLNESS PRACTICE
                        PLLC, Relators

                           Original Proceeding
              96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas
                    Trial Court No. 096-345167-23

                Before Bassel, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relators Replenish Hydration LLC (Replenish) and Boulden Wellness Practice

PLLC (Wellness) have filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

temporary relief. We conditionally grant the relief requested in the petition for writ of

mandamus in part and deny the motion for temporary relief as moot.

                                I. BACKGROUND

      In the trial court, real party in interest Balboa Capital Corporation (Balboa)

applied for a writ of garnishment against three banks, one of which was Vista Bank.

Balboa identified Kelly D. Boulden M.D., PLLC, and Kelly D. Boulden, individually,

as the judgment debtors. Balboa did not plead that a third party held nominal

ownership of accounts for either judgment debtor. After the writ issued to the banks,

Vista Bank froze the bank accounts of Replenish and Wellness.1

      In response to the freezing of their bank accounts, Replenish and Wellness

filed a motion to dissolve or modify the writ of garnishment. After an evidentiary

hearing at which Vista Bank’s counsel explained to the trial court that it broadly

interpreted the writ as applying to Replenish’s and Wellness’s accounts because its

      1
        Vista Bank has not yet filed an answer to the garnishment action. Therefore,
although this is a postjudgment garnishment proceeding, the proceeding itself is not
yet final. The trial court would have to sign a final order—following a summary
judgment, trial, or some other procedure—deciding the fate of the other garnishees.
See Strobach v. WesTex Cmty. Credit Union, 621 S.W.3d 856, 867–70 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 2021, pet. denied) (describing garnishment procedure).

                                           2
records showed that Boulden individually is a beneficial owner of the two accounts,2

the trial court denied Replenish and Wellness’s motion.

      Next, Replenish and Wellness filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking

an order directing the trial court to vacate its order denying their motion to dissolve

and to sign an order granting their motion. They also seek an order compelling Vista

Bank to release its freeze on their accounts.

                                 II. DISCUSSION3

                             A. ABUSE OF DISCRETION

      We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to dissolve the part

of the writ issued to Vista Bank. When seeking to garnish accounts in the name of a

third party, the creditor must seek to have the writ name that third party as the

nominal holder. Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B., 824 S.W.2d 557, 558

(Tex. 1992); Overton Bank & Tr., N.A. v. PaineWebber, Inc., 922 S.W.2d 311, 313–14

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ). Not only did Balboa not seek a writ of

garnishment naming Replenish and Wellness as nominal holders, but also neither

Replenish nor Wellness is named in the writ of garnishment. At the hearing, Vista

      2
       Boulden is the sole owner of Replenish and Wellness.
      3
       “Mandamus relief is available only if the court clearly abused its discretion and
the party has no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602,
605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).

                                            3
Bank acknowledged that the only two accounts it holds are for Replenish and

Wellness.

                       B. INADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL

      We also hold that Replenish and Wellness do not have an adequate remedy by

appeal as to the accounts at Vista Bank. In re Tex. Am. Exp., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 720,

727–28 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, orig. proceeding) (involving a prejudgment writ of

garnishment and the denial of a motion to dissolve and determining that appeal was

inadequate because third party’s personal account was being held and was unavailable

during proceedings before liability had been established); see also S.R.S. World Wheels,

Inc. v. Enlow, 946 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, orig. proceeding)

(involving prejudgment writ and denial of motion to dissolve); Fogel v. White,

745 S.W.2d 444, 445, 447 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding)

(involving prejudgment writ and failure to grant motion to dissolve writ).

                                III. DISPOSITION

      We thus conditionally grant the relief requested in the petition in part. We

order the trial court to immediately

   • vacate the part of its October 6, 2023 order denying Replenish and Wellness’s
     motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment as to Vista Bank and

   • grant their motion in part and dissolve the writ of garnishment as to Vista
     Bank.

      Regarding Replenish and Wellness’s request that we grant mandamus relief

ordering Vista Bank to immediately release the administrative freeze on their

                                           4
accounts, we have no jurisdiction to do so. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b).

Upon dissolution of this part of the writ of garnishment, Vista Bank will not be

bound by Section 63.003(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 63.003(a); see also Strobach, 621 S.W.3d at 869.

      Having granted the relief requested in the petition in part, we deny Replenish

and Wellness’s motion for temporary relief as moot. We vacate our October 11, 2023

order freezing Replenish’s and Wellness’s bank accounts at Vista Bank.

      A writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this

Court’s order.

                                                      /s/ Brian Walker
                                                      Brian Walker
                                                      Justice

Delivered: October 20, 2023

                                           5