Cedyco Corporation v. Carolyn Tubbs

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2008 Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2008. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-07-00399-CV ____________ CEDYCO CORPORATION, Appellant V. CAROLYN TUBBS, Appellee On Appeal from the 280th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 07-19885 M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N In this interlocutory appeal we address whether the court below had the authority to enjoin the enforcement of a writ of execution on a judgment issued by another court. Concluding that the district court did not have such authority, we reverse the district court=s temporary injunction and remand with instructions to vacate the order granting the temporary injunction and to dismiss the application for temporary injunction. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 1987, the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, rendered judgment against appellee Carolyn Tubbs based on debt she owed to Sakowitz, Inc. Subsequently, Sakowitz sold this judgment to Claron Corporation, and Claron later assigned the judgment to appellant Cedyco Corporation (ACedyco@). After numerous unsuccessful attempts to collect on this judgment, Cedyco filed for execution on the judgment in 2005 and sought to foreclose on the judgment in 2006. Tubbs responded by filing an action in the 280th District Court in Harris County, Texas, seeking a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of execution. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, and after a hearing, entered a temporary injunction enjoining the execution on the judgment. By interlocutory appeal, Cedyco now challenges the trial court=s authority to issue the temporary injunction. II. Issue and Analysis Cedyco contends that subsection 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that an action to enjoin the execution of a judgment be brought in the court where the judgment was rendered. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 65.023(b) (Vernon 1997); Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91, 94B95 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 1997, no writ). According to Cedyco, the trial court erred in enjoining enforcement of the writ of execution on the judgment because under subsection 65.023(b) the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the county court=s execution on the judgment. Under subsection 65.023(b), A[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). Section 65.023, entitled APlace for Trial,@ controls both venue and jurisdiction of a suit for an injunction to stay execution of a judgment so long as the judgment is valid on its face. McVeigh v. Lerner, 849 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). In this case, Tubbs sought to enjoin execution on the county court=s judgment. The parties do not allege that the judgment is facially invalid, and we conclude that the judgment is valid on its face. Therefore, subsection 65.023(b) requires that Tubbs bring any suit to enjoin execution on the judgment in Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 2. She instead brought suit in the court below. The Texas Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Evans, when the appellant, the sheriff of Tarrant County, argued that the trial court could not try a suit seeking to enjoin the execution of a judgment rendered by a different court. Evans v. Pringle, 643 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tex. 1982). In Evans, the sheriff appealed from a permanent injunction which prohibited him from collecting post-judgment interest from sureties on forfeited bail bonds. Id. at 117. The high court agreed with appellant and found that the judge acted in error by issuing a writ of injunction as the presiding judge of a district court to stay execution on judgments rendered by a criminal district court. Id. at 118.[1] Similarly, our sister courts have held that an action to enjoin the execution of a judgment must be brought in the court in which the judgment was rendered. Gardner v. Stewart, 223 S.W.3d 436, 438 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2006, pet. denied); Butron, 960 S.W.2d at 94B95; McVeigh, 849 S.W.2d at 914. Applying the plain language of section 65.023(b) to the present case, it is clear that any suit to enjoin or stay the execution of the judgment must be tried in County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, where the judgment was rendered. The court below erred in enjoining execution on the judgment ordered by County Civil Court at Law No. 2 in Harris County, and its temporary injunction cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse the district court=s order granting the temporary injunction, and we remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the order granting temporary injunction and to dismiss Tubbs=s application for temporary injunction. /s/ Kem Thompson Frost Justice Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2008. Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Frost and Senior Justice Murphy.* [1] The Evans court reached this decision based on the predecessor statute to section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, which provided that A[w]rits of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit, or execution on a judgment, shall be returnable to and tried in the court where such suit is pending, or such judgment was rendered.@ Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4656. * Senior Chief Justice Paul C. Murphy sitting by assignment.