in Re: Michael A. Bloom
05-15-01364-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Siblings Michael A. Bloom (relator/defendant) and Sandra Swango (real party/plaintiff) contested probate after their mother died intestate; Swango sought letters of dependent administration and declaration of heirship.
- Probate court held a hearing and declared Bloom and Swango the decedent’s only heirs, each entitled to 50% of the estate; Bloom moved to set aside and dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, attaching deeds conveying the decedent’s property to him.
- Swango filed an ancillary suit to annul inter vivos transfers to Bloom; Bloom repeatedly moved to dismiss (including under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a) asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that Swango lacked capacity as she had not qualified as administrator.
- The probate court denied Bloom’s Rule 91a motion and awarded Swango $2,840; later it awarded $4,275 under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 10.001 for abuse of process/junk motions, ordered payment within seven days, and found Bloom’s repeated jurisdictional challenges were filed for an improper purpose.
- Bloom represented he lacked steady income and moved to defer payment; after an agreed short extension, Swango moved for death-penalty sanctions. The probate court struck Bloom’s pleadings, rendered default judgment against him, set aside the conveyances (vesting property in the decedent), awarded Swango $63,825 in fees, and conditionally awarded appellate fees.
- Bloom filed this mandamus petition seeking to set aside death-penalty sanctions, to require payment findings before pre-judgment fee orders, and to dismiss/abate the ancillary proceeding for lack of capacity; the appellate court denied mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Bloom's Argument | Swango/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of death-penalty sanctions (striking pleadings/default) was an abuse of discretion | Sanctions were excessive and deprived him of relief; mandamus warranted | Repeated, improper jurisdictional motions violated §10.001 and prior fee orders; lesser sanctions failed to secure compliance | Denied mandamus; no clear abuse shown and appeal provides adequate remedy |
| Whether ordering payment of monetary sanctions before final judgment without express findings violated Bloom’s rights | Pre-judgment payment order chills access to courts; required express findings about access | Payment timing was subsumed by later death-penalty order and no longer chilling because litigation terminated as to Bloom | Denied as moot and not a basis for mandamus |
| Validity of April 7, 2015 monetary sanctions and fee awards | Awards were improper for repeating jurisdictional arguments | Fees related to defending a Rule 91a motion and sanctions under §10.001 were within court’s discretion | Court did not clearly abuse discretion in awarding monetary sanctions |
| Whether Swango lacked capacity/standing to bring ancillary proceeding (requiring dismissal/abatement) | Swango had not qualified as administrator and lacked capacity to sue for the estate | Swango’s pleadings and probate proceedings supported jurisdiction and capacity; no extraordinary writ authority shown | Not a proper basis for mandamus; court found no controlling authority to grant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requires clear abuse of discretion and inadequate appellate remedy)
- State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1984) (availability of adequate appellate remedy defeats mandamus)
- Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions that adjudicate claims may thwart effective appellate review)
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (not every interlocutory death-penalty sanction warrants mandamus; consider whether appeal will be inadequate)