Johnny Partain v. the Estate of James Harold Maples, 13-14-00584-CV

Background

Appellant Johnny Partain occupied a deceased owner’s condo, was evicted in a Justice Court Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) action, and lost a related federal adversary proceeding; several resulting judgments became final.
Partain obtained and attempted to enforce a self-drafted Turnover Order (No. 5), seized property without a receiver or statutory turnover process, and pursued many post‑judgment actions.
Partain filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in County Court at Law No. 5; after a hearing the court dissolved the TRO.
Partain sought injunctive relief in other county courts and emergency relief from the court of appeals; those efforts were denied or dismissed.
Appellee (Estate of James H. Maples) argues the TRO denial is not appealable, the county court lacked jurisdiction to relitigate the Justice Court FED judgment, the dissolution was not an abuse of discretion, the Property Code provision is constitutional, and the federal judgment nullified Turnover Order No. 5.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of denial of TRO	Partain treats dissolution as reviewable error	Appellee: denial/dissolution of TRO is not appealable	Denial/dissolution of a TRO is not appealable under Texas law
Jurisdiction to review Justice Court FED judgment	Partain seeks county/court relief that effectively reverses Justice Court result	Appellee: Justice Court has original/exclusive FED jurisdiction; county/court lacked authority to substitute	County courts and district courts cannot enjoin or override Justice Court FED proceedings absent voidness; county court lacked jurisdiction to relitigate final Justice Court FED judgment
Abuse of discretion in dissolving TRO	Partain contends judge abused discretion by dissolving TRO after hearing	Appellee: court properly exercised judicial judgment after hearing; Partain lacked standing and failed to prove entitlement to injunctive relief	Dissolution following hearing was proper exercise of discretion and not an abuse
Constitutionality of Texas Property Code § 24 (turnover/remedies)	Partain asserts the statute and its application deprived him of property without due process	Appellee: statute enacted under constitutional authority; final judgments and statutory remedies do not equal unconstitutional deprivation	Property Code provision is presumptively constitutional; losing litigation or enforcement does not show due‑process violation
Effect of federal adverse judgment on Turnover Order No. 5	Partain relies on Turnover Order No. 5 as continuing authority	Appellee: federal adversary judgment nullified/eradicated Partain’s turnover order and rendered it ineffective	Federal court judgment superseded/neutralized Partain’s Turnover Order; Partain didn’t pursue timely appeals in federal proceeding

Key Cases Cited

In re Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2002) (denial of TROs and temporary relief analysis)
Ex parte Tucci, 859 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1993) (procedural limits on temporary orders)
Henke v. Peoples State Bank, 6 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999) (TRO expiration and appealability)
Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. 1996) (source of court jurisdiction in Texas)
Kassim v. Carlisle Interests, 308 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (limits on court authority over FED matters)
Breceda v. Wii, 224 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (district/county court restrictions regarding FED actions)
Loville v. Loville, 944 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997) (distinguishing monetary jurisdiction from subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Hennigan v. Hennigan, 677 S.W.2d 495 (Tex. 1984) (authority to sanction frivolous appeals)
Tanner v. McCarthy, 274 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (turnover statute as extraordinary remedy)
Rusk v. Rusk, 5 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (turnover relief limited and narrow)
Gerjets v. Davila, 116 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (limitations on turnover to affect property rights)
Bellore S.A. v. Import Warehouse, 448 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1971) (turnover cannot determine property rights)
Craven v. Daugin Travers Co., 770 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (turnover and ownership disputes)
Republic Ins. Co. v. Millar, 525 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975) (turnover cannot preempt dominant jurisdiction)