in Re: Reliable Distributing Co., Inc.

NUMBER 13-99-289-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI ____________________________________________________________________ IN RE: RELIABLE DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. ____________________________________________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition. ____________________________________________________________________ O P I N I O N Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Chavez Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Relator, Reliable Distributing Co, Inc., has filed a petition requesting this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the presiding judge of the Hidalgo County Court-at-Law No. One(1) to dismiss Cause No. CL--31,112--A for lack of jurisdiction and to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in that case. Relator also asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition enjoining the real parties-in-interest, Joe H. Solis a/k/a Jose Solis d/b/a Valley Air & Electric Service and JHS Valley Air & Electric, Inc., from filing any suit against relator and its attorney, Joel H. Klein, in any county other than Bexar County if the suit is related to an underlying Bexar County judgment, and to enjoin the real parties-in-interest from filing any lawsuit that would impede or prevent the collection of a Bexar County judgment. This Court asked the real parties-in-interest to file a response to relator's petition. Joe H. Solis d/b/a Valley Air & Electric Service filed a response, but JHS Valley Air & Electric, Inc. did not file a response. Without hearing oral argument, see Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c), we grant the writ of mandamus and deny the writ of prohibition. Reliable sued Joe H. Solis a/k/a Jose Solis d/b/a Valley Air & Electric Service in Bexar County. On December 16, 1997, a Bexar County Court-at-Law granted Reliable a judgment based on Solis's deemed admissions. Contending that Reliable and Klein had fraudulently obtained the judgment, Solis filed a motion for new trial, which the Bexar County court orally granted. Because a written order was not timely signed by the Bexar County court, the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. Solis then filed a bill of review which the Bexar County court denied. Solis appealed the denial to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. Solis signed a supersedeas bond as principal and as sole surety, and filed it with the Bexar County Clerk. Believing that the supersedeas bond had not been approved by the Bexar County Clerk, Reliable moved to execute on Solis's property in Hidalgo County. Instead of seeking relief from the Bexar County court, Solis filed suit in Hidalgo County alleging that Reliable was attempting to execute on a judgment obtained through the fraudulent conduct of Reliable and Klein. Solis further claimed that Klein had caused his motion for new trial in the Bexar County court to be overruled, that Reliable was attempting to execute on the judgment when a supersedeas bond was on file in Bexar County, and that Reliable was attempting to execute on property belonging to JHS Valley Air & Electric, Inc., who was not a named party in the Bexar County judgment.(2) Solis also sought injunctive relief to prevent Reliable from executing on the Bexar County judgment. The Hidalgo County court signed a temporary restraining order, and Reliable filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because of improper venue and for want of jurisdiction. Reliable also sought to have the restraining order dissolved. After a hearing on December 17, 1998, the Hidalgo County court signed a temporary injunction against Reliable. Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tex. 1997); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion when it does not follow guiding rules and principles and reaches an arbitrary and unreasonable decision. Republic Royalty Co. v. Evins, 931 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding); Excel Corp. v. Valdez, 921 S.W.2d 444, 448 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding); see Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. When one court directly interferes with the jurisdiction of another, mandamus becomes appropriate. In re McCall, 967 S.W.2d 934, 938-39 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, orig. proceeding); Republic, 931 S.W.2d at 341; Flores v. Peschel, 927 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding). "Actions to restrain execution of a judgment based on invalidity of the judgment or of the writ shall be brought in the county in which the judgment was rendered." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.013 (Vernon 1986). "A writ of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit or execution on a judgment must be tried in the court in which the suit is pending or the judgment was rendered." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.023(b) (Vernon 1997). This requirement, that an action to enjoin an execution on a judgment be brought in the court which rendered the judgment, is jurisdictional. Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ). An order from a court without jurisdiction is void. See id. at 95. After reviewing Solis's original petition, we conclude the allegations are related to the validity of the proceedings before the Bexar County court and its judgment. The Hidalgo County case is nothing more than an attack on the execution of the Bexar County judgment without resolving the issue of whether the supersedeas bond filed in Bexar County is proper. Because jurisdiction and venue over these allegations are mandatory in Bexar County, we hold the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction and by issuing a void injunction order. We conditionally grant Reliable's request for a writ of mandamus and order the presiding judge of the Hidalgo County Court-at-Law No. One to dissolve the temporary injunction entered in Cause No. CL--31,112--A and to dismiss said cause for want of jurisdiction. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the event the presiding judge of the Hidalgo County Court-at-Law No. One fails to comply with this order. We deny Reliable's request for a writ of prohibition. FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3. Opinion delivered and filed this the 4th day of May, 2000. 1. We note that the Honorable Rodolfo Delgado was presiding judge of the Hidalgo County Court-at-Law No. One at the time relator's petition was filed. Judge Delgado has since resigned, and the Honorable Homero Vasquez is now presiding judge of the Hidalgo County Court-at-Law No. One. 2. As stated previously, JHS Valley Air & Electric, Inc. did not file a response to relator's petition.