Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772

Glassman, an attorney, served as trustee of an inter vivos trust created by their parents, with equal distributions to Glassman and Goodfriend after the last parent’s death.
Goodfriend petitioned for an accounting and distribution, alleging Glassman failed to comply and sought injunctive relief to preserve trust assets.
Trial court ordered an accounting; mediation occurred; an interim judgment was entered in May 2005 in exchange for a later accounting date.
Goodfriend sought contempt for noncompliance; Glassman was found in contempt and sentenced to three days’ confinement in July 2005.
In October 2005, the court issued a temporary injunction removing Glassman as trustee and appointing a successor trustee; the trust was wound up and closed in August 2007.
In 2006, the trial court awarded Goodfriend substantial damages for breach of fiduciary duty; the judgment was partially satisfied via garnishment, leading to the garnishment order at issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the garnishment order is valid given the underlying judgment.	Glassman argues void judgment; lack of timely appeal invalidates.	Goodfriend contends garnishment is ancillary to judgment and proper despite timing.	Garnishment order affirmed; underlying jurisdiction valid.
Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying trust actions.	Glassman asserts lack of jurisdiction voids judgment.	Goodfriend demonstrates jurisdiction existed under Probate Code/section 5(e) as actions involving a trust and against a trustee.	Trial court had jurisdiction; judgment not void.
Whether the initial accounting and contempt orders affected the validity of the garnishment order.	Glassman contends errors taint subsequent orders and judgment.	Those orders do not undermine garnishment validity; contempt order is not reviewable on appeal.	Conclusion preserved; garnishment affirmed; contempt/order errors do not void garnishment.
Whether sanctions under Rule 45 are warranted against Glassman for frivolous appeal.	Glassman’s appeal lacked merit and raised frivolous attacks.	Court should award sanctions for frivolous appeal under Rule 45.	Sanctions awarded; Glassman sanctioned for $2,500.

Alfonso v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2008) (collateral attack requires a void judgment for lack of jurisdiction)
Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (void judgment only for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (jurisdiction errors render judgments voidable, not voidable by default)
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent; record must negate defect)
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (judicial admissions can establish jurisdictional facts)
Chase Home Fin., L.L.C. v. Cal. W. Reconveyance Corp., 309 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (panel precedents bind unless on point by higher court en banc)
Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (Rule 45 sanctions standard; frivolous appeal can justify damages)