Roberto Escamilla v. Ricardo Cadena ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                           NUMBER 13-22-00203-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    ROBERTO ESCAMILLA,                                                     Appellant,
    v.
    RICARDO CADENA,                                                          Appellee.
    On appeal from the 93rd District Court
    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
    Appellant Roberto Escamilla appeals the trial court’s granting of a judgment in
    garnishment based on a subsisting judgment in favor of appellee Ricardo Cadena. We
    vacate and dismiss.
    I.      BACKGROUND
    On February 7, 2022, Cadena filed an application for writ of garnishment as an
    original action in the 93rd District Court in Hidalgo County, Texas. The application sought
    a writ against TRIBUILDING, LLC, noting Escamilla as the judgment debtor. According to
    the application, the same court granted summary judgment against Escamilla in the
    amount of $315,471, excluding interest and attorney’s fees, in favor of Cadena for breach
    of contract in a separate suit. 1 Cadena sought a writ of garnishment against one-third of
    TRIBUILDING’s assets, claiming that Escamilla owns one-third of the membership in
    TRIBUILDING. Among the assets, Cadena sought garnishment over funds held in various
    bank accounts, accounts receivables, and real property. Escamilla filed a petition in
    intervention, arguing that garnishment of TRIBUILDING’s assets would be improper
    because he did not own interest in TRIBUILDING’s assets by virtue of being a member
    of TRIBUILDING. On April 1, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment in garnishment for
    portions of TRIBUILDING’s assets in favor of Cadena. 2 Escamilla appealed the judgment
    in garnishment.
    II.        WRIT OF GARNISHMENT
    A.      Applicable Law
    “Garnishment is a statutory proceeding whereby the property, money, or credits of
    1 Escamilla successfully appealed the subsisting summary judgment to this Court, which we
    reversed and remanded. See Escamilla v. Cadena, No. 13-22-00041-CV, 
    2023 WL 3015390
    , at *1 (Tex.
    App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 20, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). We take judicial notice of the records
    in the appeal from the underlying summary judgment.
    2 Two copies of the judgment in garnishment appear in the clerk’s record, both signed by the trial
    court. One signature is dated April 1, 2022, and the other is dated April 8, 2022.
    2
    a debtor in the possession of another are applied to the payment of the debt.” Bank One,
    Tex., N.A. v. Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B., 
    824 S.W.2d 557
    , 558 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam); see
    TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 63.001–.008; TEX. R. CIV. P. 658. In this situation, a
    writ of garnishment is available if the plaintiff “has a valid, subsisting judgment.” TEX. CIV.
    PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 63.001(3). It follows, then, that the validity of a judgment in
    garnishment rests upon the validity of the underlying judgment debt. Baca v. Hoover, Bax
    & Shearer, 
    823 S.W.2d 734
    , 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied); see
    also Cosentino v. Peters, No. 13-10-00445-CV, 
    2012 WL 2469858
    , at *5 (Tex. App.—
    Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 28, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[A] garnishment is void
    when the underlying judgment is void.”). Moreover, if the underlying judgment is reversed
    on appeal, the garnishment proceedings become null, and any writs issued have no force
    or authority. Baca, 
    823 S.W.2d at 738
    ; see also Cosentino, 
    2012 WL 2469858
    , at *5.
    B.     Analysis
    The underlying judgment in this proceeding—the summary judgment granted on
    October 26, 2021—was reversed by this Court on April 20, 2023. See Escamilla v.
    Cadena, No. 13-22-00041-CV, 
    2023 WL 3015390
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–
    Edinburg Apr. 20, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The deadlines for Cadena to file a motion
    for rehearing or a petition for review have passed and Cadena did not file either. See TEX.
    R. APP. P. 49.1 (permitting a motion for rehearing within fifteen days of the judgment or
    order); id. 49.9 (permitting a fifteen-day extension on time to file a motion for rehearing);
    id. 53.7(a), (f) (permitting a petition for review within forty-five days of the judgment and a
    fifteen-day extension for time to file petition for review). Thus, Cadena no longer has a
    3
    valid, subsisting judgment to support a writ of garnishment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
    CODE ANN. § 63.001(3); Baca, 
    823 S.W.2d at 738
    . As such, the judgment in garnishment
    is now void. See Baca, 
    823 S.W.2d at 738
    ; see also Cosentino, 
    2012 WL 2469858
    , at *5.
    “[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void
    orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or
    judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that
    determination.” Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 
    372 S.W.3d 621
    , 623 (Tex. 2012).
    Accordingly, we declare the judgment void. 
    Id.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    Without reaching the merits of appellant’s issues, we vacate the judgment and
    dismiss the appeal.
    CLARISSA SILVA
    Justice
    Delivered and filed on the
    6th day of July, 2023.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-22-00203-CV

Filed Date: 7/6/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/8/2023