Black v. Shor
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4789
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellees Shor and Seashore prevailed in an arbitration yielding a judgment over $30 million against appellants Black and related entities.
- Trial court confirmed arbitration award on April 6, 2011 and entered judgment; three turnover orders followed (Aug. 11, 2011; Oct. 12, 2011; Nov. 4, 2011).
- Turnover orders sought to reach nonexempt property and assets controlled by appellants to satisfy the judgment.
- First turnover order directed turnover of listed interests and property to the sheriff; it stated Shor owned certain properties regardless of compliance.
- Second turnover order referenced a bankruptcy settlement involving a Chapter 7 trustee and directed turnover via bankruptcy court processes; the trustee was found to hold interests.
- Third turnover order amended and expanded the scope to include all personal property at 500 N. Water Street, with specific property blocks and conditions, and directed turnover to the sheriff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether turnover orders had evidentiary support as required by 31.002 | Shor/Seashore contend evidence supported turnover. | Black/others argue lack of evidence; orders were issued without proper showing. | Abused discretion; first order void for lack of evidentiary support. |
| Whether August 11, 2011 order was void due to bankruptcy stay | Stay not violated; order valid. | Order violated stay; therefore void, nullifying later orders. | Sustained; August 11 order void; later orders not based on a valid order. |
| Whether Rule 29.5 applicability barred review of turnover orders | Rule 29.5 applicability to turnover orders applies. | Turnover orders are final judgments and not governed by Rule 29. | Rule 29.5 inapplicable; denial of challenge. |
| Whether the combination of orders requires reversal of all turnover orders | Aggregate effect of orders shows abuse of discretion. | Orders are distinct and reviewable individually. | Orders are distinct; some relief granted; remand not needed for all. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard for turnover orders)
- Moyer v. Moyer, 183 S.W.3d 48 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005) (procedural turnover standards and necessity of evidence)
- Europa Int'l, Ltd. v. Direct Access Trader Corp., 315 S.W.3d 654 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (requirements for turnover relief under 31.002)
- Tanner v. McCarthy, 274 S.W.3d 311 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (evidentiary showing required for turnover relief)
- Bahar v. Lyon Fin. Servs., 330 S.W.3d 379 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (amended turnover orders can be final judgments)
- Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 810 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.1991) (turnover orders as mandatory injunctions; final, appealable)