Unit 82 Joint Venture v. International Commercial Bank of China, 460 S.W.3d 616

Five Star (and related entities) leased a large El Paso warehouse to Mediacopy, a California corporation (M-CA) under a 1997 lease; affiliates Mediacopy Texas, Inc. (MTI) operated manufacturing there.
ICBC sued MTI/Infodisc in California in 2004; a California court appointed Robb Evans receiver for MTI, and a Texas court later appointed him ancillary receiver for assets located in El Paso.
M-CA filed Chapter 11 in Oct. 2004; its schedules did not list the specific personal property later sold by the ancillary receiver. M-CA informed the bankruptcy court that its affiliates and the receiver were liquidating affiliate assets at the El Paso premises.
The ancillary receiver conducted on-site auctions in June–July 2005 and liquidated assets; proceeds exceeded $7.5 million. Appellants intervened and challenged the sales as violating M-CA’s automatic bankruptcy stay.
After remand from the Texas Supreme Court to resolve whether M-CA had an interest in the sold property, the trial court found M-CA did not own the sold property, concluded no stay violation occurred, and later confirmed the receiver’s accounting and terminated the ancillary receivership.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to jury trial on ownership fact issue	Appellants: entitled to jury on whether M-CA owned sold property	Receiver/ICBC: receivership fact-issues are equitable and not jury issues	Denied — no jury right in receivership fact determinations
Whether trial court could decide its own jurisdiction	Appellants: court lacked power to "bootstrap" jurisdiction	Defendants: courts always determine their own jurisdiction	Denied — court may determine its jurisdiction
Whether ancillary sales/possession violated bankruptcy automatic stay	Appellants: M-CA (lease tenant) owned property; sales violated stay	Defendants: evidence shows MTI owned the sold assets; M-CA consented/was not owner	Held for defendants — factual finding M-CA did not own sold property; no stay violation
Validity/duration of receivership and termination	Appellants: receivership expired by statute (three-year limit) and the extension was untimely	Defendants: extension application and order were entered; appellants failed to timely object; trial court properly wound up receivership	Held for defendants — extension/order effective; termination and discharge affirmed

Unit 82 Joint Venture v. Mediacopy Texas, Inc., 349 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (prior appellate opinion vacating trial judgment re: stay issue)
Evans v. Unit 82 Joint Venture, 377 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. 2012) (Texas Supreme Court reversing and remanding to resolve whether debtor had interest in sold property)
Henry v. Masson, 333 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (no jury right in receivership proceedings)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency review)
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (court has authority to determine its own jurisdiction)
Bayoud v. Bayoud, 797 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990) (statutory extension requirements for receivership are procedural; failure to timely object may waive challenge)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo)