Claudia S. Donaldson v. David Vaughn Donaldson
11-16-00343-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Claudia S. Donaldson filed a timely appeal from a divorce decree and an affidavit of indigence seeking to proceed without payment of costs.
- The court reporter contested indigence; a hearing was set but Claudia objected in writing and the trial court deemed her affidavit of indigence timely and true under former Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(i), ordering preparation of the record.
- Ten days later the court reporter, through counsel, moved for sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 based on Claudia’s written objection, which contained inappropriate comments about the judge.
- The trial court granted sanctions: it struck Claudia’s indigence filings, set aside the January 13, 2017 indigence order, and awarded $1,200 in attorney’s fees to the court reporter to be paid to the reporter’s counsel.
- The appellate court vacated the sanctions order, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction after plenary power expired, found no authority to strike an affidavit of indigence as a Rule 13 sanction for separate-filed comments, and questioned a court reporter’s ability to seek sanctions or receive attorney’s fees as a sanction.
- The appellate court reinstated the January 13, 2017 indigence order and set a new Reporter’s Record due date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter Rule 13 sanctions after plenary power expired | Claudia: trial court no longer had plenary power; sanctions order void | Court reporter: sanctions permissible despite timing | Trial court lacked jurisdiction; sanctions order void |
| Whether striking an affidavit of indigence is an available Rule 13 sanction for inappropriate comments in a separate filing | Claudia: no authority supports striking indigence affidavit as Rule 13 sanction | Court reporter: striking was an appropriate sanction for misconduct | No authority supports striking an indigence affidavit as such a sanction |
| Whether a court reporter (nonparty) may move for sanctions and receive attorney’s fees as the sanction award | Claudia: court reporter is not a party and may not seek sanctions or receive fee award as sanction | Court reporter: sought sanctions and fees through counsel | Appellate court found no authority for a court reporter to request sanctions or to be awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction |
| Whether the trial court’s January 13, 2017 order permitting indigent appeal should be reinstated | Claudia: January 13 order should stand because sanctions void | Court reporter: sought to overturn January 13 order via sanctions | January 13, 2017 indigence order reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott & White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. 1996) (trial court cannot grant Rule 13 sanctions after plenary power expires)
- Warfield Elec. of Tex., Inc. v. Harry Hines Prop. Venture, 871 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no writ) (sanctions entered after plenary power expired are void)
- Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (discusses limits of trial court authority post-judgment)
- Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) (permitting postjudgment sanctions under a different rule when related to enforcement)