Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals
04-15-00287-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2015Background
- Cecil and Maxine Adams (pro se) filed an emergency motion asking the Fourth Court of Appeals to review interlocutory orders from the 269th District Court after an appellate mandate issued from the First Court of Appeals (April 4, 2014). The trial court nonetheless set a new trial and post‑mandate proceedings.
- A former district judge (Sharolyn Wood) signed an agreed transfer order moving the case from the 190th to the 269th District Court; Adams contend the transfer was to a court without jurisdiction or was executed by an unassigned judge. Adams argues that statutory limits on transfers (Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 74.093(d), 74.094) void subsequent 269th District Court orders.
- Post‑mandate suits in the 269th include: (1) the court reporter (Kathleen Keese) suing to re‑tax additional costs for an indigent record; (2) the district clerk / Harris County filing an interpleader to re‑tax costs and have funds in the registry allocated; and (3) Rebecca Ross seeking an offset against funds in the registry. The Adams moved for no‑evidence summary judgment on these claims; the trial court denied relief.
- Adams argue (a) taxing or re‑taxing costs after the appellate mandate is improper because the mandate controls and district clerks perform ministerial billing duties, and (b) interpleader is defective because Harris County did not unconditionally deposit funds and cannot show multiple liability. They also contend Ross lacks authority to offset the registry funds under the existing mandate.
- Adams moved under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a to dismiss Harris County’s interpleader as baseless; the trial court denied that motion. Adams ask the appellate court to stay all 269th District Court proceedings and to review and reverse the challenged interlocutory orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to 269th gave jurisdiction | Transfer to 269th was improper or executed by an unassigned judge, so 269th orders are void | Transfer and assignment were valid; 269th has jurisdiction | Trial court proceeded; Adams seeks reversal; appellate review pending |
| Whether post‑mandate re‑taxing of costs is permissible | Mandate controls; re‑taxing costs after mandate is improper; clerk must ministerially tabulate costs | Claimants (court reporter, clerk) may seek correction or collection of omitted costs in district court | Trial court denied Adams’s summary judgment; Adams seeks reversal; pending review |
| Validity of Harris County interpleader to allocate registry funds | Interpleader defective: no unconditional deposit by county, no multiple liability; moot because clerk should bill; relief barred by statutes/rules | County seeks judicial determination of amounts and proper allocation of registry funds | Trial court allowed interpleader to proceed; Adams moved to dismiss under Rule 91a and was denied; appellate review sought |
| Ross’s request to offset registry funds | Ross lacks authority under mandate to enforce an offset against funds Adams deposited; no evidence of entitlement to offset | Ross claims right to portion of funds to satisfy separate judgment | Trial court denied Adams’s summary judgment on Ross’s offset claim; Adams seeks reversal; pending review |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (trial court must adhere to and enforce appellate instructions after mandate issues)
- Reaugh v. McCollum Exploration Co., 167 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. 1943) (taxing of costs is ministerial; appellate mandate timing limits re‑taxing)
- Pitts v. Dallas County Bail Bond Bd., 23 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000) (clerk performs ministerial duty of itemizing costs)
- Souder v. Cannon, 235 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (requirements for competent summary judgment evidence)
- Olmos v. Pecan Grove Mun. Utility Dist., 857 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App. 1993) (statutory protections can shield an interpleading clerk from trustee‑style liability)