522 S.W.3d 669
Tex. App.2017Background
- Glassman, as trustee, failed to account and distribute trust assets; Goodfriend sued and obtained a 2006 final judgment against Glassman for breach of fiduciary duty, damages, exemplary damages, fees, and turnover of trust property. Glassman did not timely appeal.
- Goodfriend later pursued garnishment proceedings to collect the judgment; Glassman collaterally attacked the 2006 judgment in a 2009 appeal. This court (en banc) rejected that attack, found jurisdiction existed, and awarded $2,500 in sanctions to Goodfriend (Glassman I). The Texas Supreme Court denied review.
- In 2016 Glassman filed a second motion in the trial court (under the original cause number) to vacate the 2006 judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion and Glassman appealed.
- Goodfriend moved in the trial court to declare Glassman a vexatious litigant; the trial court did not timely rule, later issued a denial after losing plenary power, and Goodfriend did not appeal that delay. Goodfriend also sought sanctions on appeal.
- This court held Glassman’s 2016 collateral attack barred because the record affirmatively showed jurisdiction and because non-jurisdictional complaints are time-barred; the court found the appeal frivolous and awarded Goodfriend $10,000 in appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glassman) | Defendant's Argument (Goodfriend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2006 judgment (jurisdiction) | Probate Court No. 1 lacked jurisdiction; judgment therefore void | Record affirmatively shows the probate court had jurisdiction; prior en banc decision confirmed jurisdiction | Court: Collateral attack fails; record shows jurisdiction; prior judgment (Glassman I) is binding |
| Non-jurisdictional challenges (due process, proof, Rule 11) | Trial violated due process (no actual notice); other statutory/procedural errors | Such errors, if any, would render the judgment voidable, not void, and are time-barred because no timely direct appeal was filed | Court: Non-jurisdictional complaints are time-barred and thus overruled |
| Vexatious litigant motion (trial court delay) | N/A (Goodfriend sought motion below) | Goodfriend: trial court failed to timely rule; sought review/declaratory relief | Court: Lacks jurisdiction to review trial court’s untimely or post-plenary denial; Goodfriend did not timely object or appeal; appellate court cannot grant that relief |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Glassman: reasserts that Glassman I was wrongly decided | Goodfriend: Appeal is frivolous given prior adjudication and incurable lack of jurisdiction; requests $10,000 in fees | Court: Appeal is frivolous; awards $10,000 in "just damages" (appellate attorney’s fees) based on affidavit and prior sanction history |
Key Cases Cited
- Glassman v. Goodfriend, 347 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (en banc) (prior appellate decision rejecting Glassman’s collateral attack and imposing sanctions)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (after time for direct appeal expires, only collateral attack available)
- Alfonso v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2008) (collateral attack succeeds only if record affirmatively reveals jurisdictional defect)
- Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (only a void judgment may be collaterally attacked)
- Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (standard for determining whether an appeal is objectively frivolous and awarding appellate damages)