Mitchell v. Turbine Resources Unlimited, Inc.
523 S.W.3d 189
Tex. App.2017Background
- Turbine obtained a 2006 summary-judgment against Tom George and International A., Inc.; the court entered turnover orders and appointed a receiver/master to collect nonexempt assets to satisfy the judgment.
- Receiver/master Riecke Baumann filed multiple master’s reports (first adopted Jan. 2, 2014; second adopted Sept. 5, 2014) finding George controlled TCSM, used TCSM to hide assets, and that certain vehicles (2009 Bentley, 2011 Ford Expedition) and inventory were subject to the receivership.
- Jennifer Mitchell (who lived with George and was alleged to have common-law spousal/community ties) and TCSM were not original parties but later filed motions as interested third parties and ultimately intervened to assert ownership claims to the vehicles and inventory.
- The trial court signed (Sept. 24, 2014) an order authorizing the receiver to sell property “subject to third parties’ rights,” later denying Mitchell’s motion to modify (Apr. 14, 2015) and approving the sale (June 2, 2015) after an evidentiary hearing where Mitchell testified.
- Mitchell had sold the vehicles after being ordered to produce ownership/location proof; she and TCSM then sought to set aside the master’s reports and filed a mandamus petition after the trial court denied that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Mitchell/TCSM Argument | Turbine/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Sept. 24, 2014 order of sale | Order invalid as to third-party property; sale order binds them despite nonparty status | Order interlocutory and moot as to vehicles; did not finally adjudicate third-party ownership | Court lacked jurisdiction to review that order: appeal as to vehicles moot (Mitchell sold them); order interlocutory re: ownership because it was subject to third parties’ rights |
| Whether trial court exceeded plenary power/voidly expanded liability after plenary power expired | Adoption of master’s reports and sale order improperly extended judgment to nonparties and altered judgment after plenary power | Post-plenary power court retained authority to enforce judgment (turnover/receiver powers); orders were enforcement, not modification | Court did not err; enforcement power allows issuance/approval of turnover and sale orders to satisfy judgment |
| Due process / lack of service before orders of sale | Mitchell/TCSM were not served/named; orders void for lack of jurisdiction over their property | Mitchell and TCSM intervened and litigated claims; intervention confers jurisdiction and due process; hearing was held and Mitchell testified | No due-process violation; once appellants intervened the court properly adjudicated their claims and the evidentiary hearing provided process |
| Mandamus relief to set aside master’s reports adopted Jan. 2 and Sept. 5, 2014 | Orders adopting master’s reports are void because relators were nonparties when adopted and thus mandamus is required | Orders were not void: the court had jurisdiction over George and issued turnover orders; pre-intervention findings did not bind nonparties and court later adjudicated intervenors’ claims | Mandamus denied: no clear abuse of discretion; adoption orders were not void and relators received opportunity to contest after intervening |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness standards)
- Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2007) (appeal moot when action cannot affect parties’ rights)
- Huston v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 800 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1990) (receivership order finality/discrete-issue test)
- Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 810 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1991) (scope of turnover statute and authority to order turnover against judgment debtor/control)
- Bay City Plastics, Inc. v. McEntire, 106 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (turnover may require court to determine what property is in debtor’s control; findings bind debtors not nonparties)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (jurisdiction to enforce vs. merits of relief)
- Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990) (definition when an order/judgment is void)