Altesse Healthecare Solutions, Inc. and Shawna Boudreaux v. Allen Wilson and Becky Wilson
544 S.W.3d 1
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Sellers Allen and Becky Wilson agreed to sell ABACAW (Golden Pond Home Healthcare) to Altesse for $800,000; payments were to begin October 15, 2014. Altesse operated the business but failed to pay the first installment and filed suit in federal court.
- The Wilsons sued in state court seeking breach of contract, fraud, declaratory relief, and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) on December 17, 2014 requiring Altesse to return company assets, access, passwords, records, and patient/employee information within three days.
- No court reporter transcript or formal evidentiary hearing was made of the December 17 TRO signing; Altesse filed an emergency motion to set aside the TRO and removed the case to federal court; case later remanded to state court.
- The Wilsons moved for contempt and sanctions alleging Altesse violated the TRO by transferring/depleting funds, failing to return assets and vital records (including patient visit notes and physician orders), and continuing to hold itself out as the operator for Medicare purposes.
- After an evidentiary hearing the trial court found contempt, imposed "death penalty" sanctions (entering judgment against Altesse for $897,937.51 and liability on all Wilsons’ claims), and awarded post-judgment fees; Altesse appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilsons) | Defendant's Argument (Altesse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether death-penalty sanctions were just and constitutional | Sanctions were justified because Altesse violated the TRO, depleted assets, damaged the business that was the suit’s subject, and delayed/inhibited recovery | Sanctions violated due process and TransAmerican standard; not directly related, excessive, and Altesse substantially complied or was unable to comply due to patient-safety obligations | Affirmed. Sanctions directly related to the violations, not excessive given business destruction, and TransAmerican presumption of lack of merit was justified |
| 2. Whether Altesse should have been held in contempt for TRO violations | TRO violations (fund transfers, withheld assets/records, Medicare-related conduct) warranted contempt | Altesse substantially complied or could not comply because of patient-safety and regulatory concerns | Affirmed contempt. Credibility/weight of testimony supported contempt and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| 3. Validity of the TRO (status quo, probable injury, condition precedent) | TRO preserved value and prevented irreparable harm; Wilsons established need | TRO argued to be improper: didn’t maintain status quo, lacked probable injury, suit premature/condition precedent unmet | Not reached on merits. Even if TRO erroneous, it was not absolutely void; Altesse was required to obey it and violations supported sanctions |
| 4. Procedural complaints (federal forum/compulsory counterclaim; TRO hearing off the record) | Federal removal/compulsory counterclaim irrelevant to obligation to obey TRO; no evidentiary hearing necessary for TRO | Removal meant TRO issues belonged in federal court; lack of reporter transcript violated appellate rules | Rejections: federal-removal/compulsory-counterclaim argument did not excuse noncompliance; absence of reporter record not preserved and harmless if no evidence was introduced |
Key Cases Cited
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (due-process limits on death-penalty sanctions; presumption that claims lack merit required)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1992) (sanctions must be directly related to offensive conduct and not excessive)
- Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (inadequate briefing waives appellate complaints)
- Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (reporter's record required only when evidence is introduced in open court)
- Ex parte Browne, 543 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. 1976) (only absolutely void orders excuse noncompliance)
- Randolph v. Walker, 29 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (sanctions review is abuse-of-discretion standard)