Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion =
filed March=20
13, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth=20
Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-00399-CV
____________
CEDYCO=20
CORPORATION, =
Appellant
V.
CAROLYN=20
TUBBS, =
Appellee
On Appeal from the =
280th District Court
Harris County, =
Texas
Trial Court Cause =
No. 07-19885
M E M O R=20
A N D U M O P I N I O N
In this=20
interlocutory appeal we address whether the court below had the =
authority=20
to enjoin the enforcement of a writ of execution on a judgment =
issued by=20
another court. Concluding that the district court did not =
have such=20
authority, we reverse the district court=3Ds=20
temporary injunction and remand with instructions to vacate the =
order=20
granting the temporary injunction and to dismiss the application =
for=20
temporary injunction.
I. =20
Factual and Procedural=20
Background
In 1987,=20
the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, =
rendered=20
judgment against appellee Carolyn Tubbs based on debt she owed to=20
Sakowitz, Inc. Subsequently, Sakowitz sold this judgment to =
Claron=20
Corporation, and Claron later assigned the judgment to appellant =
Cedyco=20
Corporation (ACedyco@).
After=20
numerous unsuccessful attempts to collect on this judgment, Cedyco =
filed=20
for execution on the judgment in 2005 and sought to foreclose on =
the=20
judgment in 2006. Tubbs responded by filing an action in the =
280th=20
District Court in Harris County, Texas, seeking a temporary =
restraining=20
order, a temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction to =
enjoin the=20
enforcement of the writ of execution. The trial court =
granted a=20
temporary restraining order, and after a hearing, entered a =
temporary=20
injunction enjoining the execution on the judgment. By =
interlocutory=20
appeal, Cedyco now challenges the trial court=3Ds=20
authority to issue the temporary injunction.
II. =20
Issue and=20
Analysis
Cedyco=20
contends that subsection 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and =
Remedies Code requires that an action to enjoin the execution of a =
judgment be brought in the court where the judgment was =
rendered. =20
See Tex. Civ. =
Prac. &=20
Rem. Code Ann. ' =
65.023(b)=20
(Vernon 1997); Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91, =
94B95 (Tex.=20
App.CCorpus=20
Christi 1997, no writ). According to Cedyco, the trial court =
erred=20
in enjoining enforcement of the writ of execution on the judgment =
because=20
under subsection 65.023(b) the trial court did not have =
jurisdiction over=20
the county court=3Ds=20
execution on the judgment.
Under=20
subsection 65.023(b), A[a] writ=20
of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit or execution =
on a=20
judgment must be tried in the court in which the suit is pending =
or the=20
judgment was rendered.@ =20
Tex. Civ. Prac. & =
Rem. Code=20
Ann. ' =
65.023(b). Section 65.023, entitled APlace for=20
Trial,@ =
controls=20
both venue and jurisdiction of a suit for an injunction to stay =
execution=20
of a judgment so long as the judgment is valid on its face. =20
McVeigh v. Lerner, 849 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex.=20
App.BHouston=20
[1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). In this case, Tubbs =
sought to=20
enjoin execution on the county court=3Ds=20
judgment. The parties do not allege that the judgment is =
facially=20
invalid, and we conclude that the judgment is valid on its =
face. =20
Therefore, subsection 65.023(b) requires that Tubbs bring any suit =
to=20
enjoin execution on the judgment in Harris County Civil Court at =
Law No.=20
2. She instead brought suit in the court below.
The Texas=20
Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Evans, =
when the=20
appellant, the sheriff of Tarrant County, argued that the trial =
court=20
could not try a suit seeking to enjoin the execution of a judgment =
rendered by a different court. Evans v. Pringle, =
643=20
S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tex. 1982). In Evans, the =
sheriff=20
appealed from a permanent injunction which prohibited him from =
collecting=20
post-judgment interest from sureties on forfeited bail =
bonds. Id.=20
at 117. The high court agreed with appellant and found =
that the=20
judge acted in error by issuing a writ of injunction as the =
presiding=20
judge of a district court to stay execution on judgments rendered =
by a=20
criminal district court. Id. at 118. =20
Similarly, our sister courts have held that an action to enjoin =
the=20
execution of a judgment must be brought in the court in which the =
judgment=20
was rendered. Gardner v. Stewart, 223 S.W.3d =
436, 438=20
(Tex. App.CAmarillo=20
2006, pet. denied); Butron, 960 S.W.2d at =
94B95;=20
McVeigh, 849 S.W.2d at 914.
Applying=20
the plain language of section 65.023(b) to the present case, it is =
clear=20
that any suit to enjoin or stay the execution of the judgment must =
be=20
tried in County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, =
where=20
the judgment was rendered. The court below erred in =
enjoining=20
execution on the judgment ordered by County Civil Court at Law No. =
2 in=20
Harris County, and its temporary injunction cannot stand. =20
Accordingly,=20
we reverse the district court=3Ds order=20
granting the temporary injunction, and we remand to the trial =
court with=20
instructions to vacate the order granting temporary injunction and =
to=20
dismiss Tubbs=3Ds=20
application for temporary injunction.
/s/ =20
Kem Thompson Frost
Justice
Judgment=20
rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2008.
Panel=20
consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Frost and Senior Justice =
Murphy.
The Evans court reached =
this=20
decision based on the predecessor statute to section 65.023(b) of =
the=20
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, which provided that =
A[w]rits of injunction granted to stay =
proceedings=20
in a suit, or execution on a judgment, shall be returnable to and =
tried in=20
the court where such suit is pending, or such judgment was=20
rendered.@ Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. =
Ann.=20
art. 4656.
Senior Chief Justice Paul C. =
Murphy sitting=20
by =
assignment. |