London v. London
349 S.W.3d 672
Tex. App.2011Background
- Jeffrey London has an unpaid judgment against his former wife Leticia London.
- Leticia attempted to sell her homestead; sale proceeds were to be paid to creditors identified by Leticia’s closing statement.
- A receiver was appointed to collect and hold Leticia’s homestead-sale proceeds for turnover to London.
- The trial court partly granted turnover relief and appointed a receiver, with conditions restricting disbursement.
- London later sought to disburse the remaining proceeds to himself via a motion for turnover relief; Leticia challenged jurisdiction.
- This appeal seeks to review the trial court’s denial of London’s February 2010 motion to disburse proceeds, while Leticia moves to dismiss and sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the February 2010 denial. | London sought turnover relief on remand. | Leticia contends no interlocutory appeal exists without a statute. | Lacks jurisdiction; no statutory basis for interlocutory appeal. |
| Whether the December 1, 2009 turnover judgment is final for appeal purposes. | December judgment should support an appeal from later denial. | December judgment deemed final only for appeal, not Rule 329b timing. | December 1, 2009 judgment deemed final for appellate purposes; February 2010 denial not an appealable final judgment. |
| Whether treating the December 2009 judgment as final conflicts with Rule 329b timing. | Rule 329b timing should apply to post-judgment motions. | Treating as final for appeal does not resolve Rule 329b issues. | Not treated as final for Rule 329b; no timely appellate jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huston v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 800 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1990) (discrete issues in receivership are appealable as final judgments until statute says otherwise)
- Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1995) (abrogated substantial-right analysis for probate/receivership finality)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment concept expanded for certain probate/receivership orders)
- Burns v. Miller, Hiersche, Martens & Hayward, P.C., 909 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1995) (post-judgment turnover orders may be final for appeal)
- Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 810 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1991) (turnover-related orders may be final for appeal)