In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886

Fitzgerald challenged a trial court contempt finding for noncompliance with a discovery order arising from a 1988 agreed judgment against Fitzgerald in favor of Tyler National Bank, later assigned to The Cadle Company by the FDIC in 1990.
Writs of execution issued in 1995 and 2005 were not served on Fitzgerald; Cadle provided discovery demands and a deposition notice in 2011, which Fitzgerald failed to respond to or appear for.
Cadle moved to compel; Fitzgerald, represented by Mason (apparently not formally engaged), sought to postpone; the court granted the motion to compel with dates for production and deposition; Fitzgerald later sought reconsideration and protective order.
Fitzgerald did not appear for the contempt hearing; he later appeared with White as his counsel in the contempt proceedings; the court found him in contempt, ordered payment of Cadle’s fees and costs, and required production and deposition on the specified dates.
Fitzgerald posted a $25,000 bond to suspend the contempt judgment and filed a petition for writ of mandamus seven months later.
The mandamus petition alleges lack of Mason’s authority, dormancy of the judgment, and improper contempt structure; the court denied relief, holding no void order or abuse of discretion present.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mason acted with authority to represent Fitzgerald at the motion to compel	Fitzgerald claims Mason lacked authority and service; argues order to compel void.	Cadle contends Mason was authorized to represent Fitzgerald; presumption of authorization applies.	No abuse; Mason had implied authority; presumption controls; order not void.
Whether the 2005 writ of execution extended the enforceability period for the agreed judgment given dormancy	Writ timing issues render the judgment dormant and unenforceable.	Dormancy is voidable, not void; cannot be collateral attacked; judgment binding.	Dormant judgment is voidable only; cannot attack via mandamus; discovery proper.
Whether the contempt judgment requirements were properly applied given potential unwillful noncompliance	Order may punish noncompliance that is potentially unwillful; concerns about willfulness.	Chambers requires willfulness for criminal contempt; but conduct here is civil contempt; waiver of notice issues.	Issue waived for lack of proper argument and authorities; no basis to reverse contempt order.

In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611 (Tex.2011) (mandamus prerequisites in contempt cases)
In re E. Tex. Med. Ctr. Athens, 154 S.W.3d 933 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2005) (orig. proceeding mandamus requirements)
In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., LLC, 328 S.W.3d 883 (Tex.2010) (abuse of discretion standard in contempt and discovery)
In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.1999) (review of contempt orders; standard of review)
Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 332 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (voidness of orders; void vs voidable judgments)
Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.1995) (willful violation requirement in contempt)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005) (credibility and witness testimony; implied authority presumptions)
Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.1990) (testimony of interested witness; credibility determinations)
Cox v. Realty Dev. Corp., 748 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988) (notice and representation in hearings; waiver considerations)
Hill v. W.E. Brittain, Inc., 405 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1966) (notice; appearance without objection waives challenge)
Slay v. Fugitt, 802 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1957) (void vs voidable judgments; direct vs collateral attack)
Burlington State Bank v. Marlin Nat'l Bank, 207 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App.-Austin 1918) (dormant judgments; extension by writs)