Browning v. Placke
| Citation | 698 S.W.2d 362 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4425,C-4425 |
| Parties | Jane H. BROWNING et al., Relators, v. The Honorable John L. PLACKE, Judge et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
R. Jack Ayres, Jr., Thomas V. Murto, III, Jeff R. Boggess and Larry B. Dwight, Dallas, W. James Kronzer, Jr., Houston, Scott, Douglass & Luton, Frank Douglass and Steve McConnico, Austin, for relators.
Dale Ossip Johnson, Austin, Pat S. Holloway, Gidding, James H. Keahey, Jack Ratliff, Lynch, Chappell, Allday & Alsup, Thomas T. Rogers and Wallace M. Smith, O'Neill, Haase & White, Rex H. White, Jr., Austin, for respondents.
This original mandamus proceeding presents the question whether a district court may declare void the judgment of another district court. We hold that absent a showing that the prior court lacked jurisdiction, no such declaration is permissible.
In 1982, the Brownings recovered a judgment against Humble Exploration Company, Pat S. Holloway, and others. This judgment, rendered by the 162nd District Court of Dallas County after a jury trial, imposed a constructive trust on Humble/Holloway assets and awarded the Brownings actual and exemplary damages totaling $72 million. Humble/Holloway appealed the judgment. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal because Humble/Holloway had elected to simultaneously challenge the judgment in federal court. Humble/Holloway then filed an application for writ of error in this court, complaining of the dismissal by the court of appeals. This court refused that application, no reversible error.
In June 1985, Humble, Holloway, Holloway family members, and others filed several suits in the 21st District Court of Lee County. One complaint in those suits was that persons who had royalty interests in Humble and persons who had interests in Holloway's assets were not joined in the Dallas district court proceeding, making the judgment in that case void. Numerous other complaints were also made, including that assets were mishandled by a receiver, that the Dallas district court failed to give Humble/Holloway a fair trial, and that because of the Dallas district court proceedings, Humble/Holloway and other plaintiffs were entitled to damages for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, interference with business relations, and malicious prosecution.
On August 28, 1985, the Lee County district court rendered an "Order Overruling Special Appearances, Pleas to the Jurisdiction, in Abatement, to Dismiss, of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel and Claim of Non-Suit and Abandonment of Claims." Signed after a temporary injunction hearing, this order found inter alia that Holloway family members and royalty owners were indispensable parties to the Dallas district court action but were not joined therein; that Humble and Holloway were denied a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols Etc.
...907 S.W.2d at 485; Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1990) (per curiam); Cook, 733 S.W.2d at 140; Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985) (per curiam). Here, the only issue in dispute is jurisdiction, and the trial court lost jurisdiction when its plenary power exp......
-
In re Liptak
...no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court." Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985); see In re Altman Nursing, 299 B.R. 813, 820 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2003). Other Texas authority takes the narrower view that potential......
-
Browning v. Navarro
...is rendered. Under Texas law, the doctrine of unclean hands may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment. In Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.1985) (per curiam), the Texas Supreme Court Unless a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is void, it is not subject to collateral......
-
Mitchell v. Map Res., Inc.
...or record of the original tax foreclosure lawsuit.A collateral attack may only be maintained against a void judgment. Browning v. Placke , 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985). A void judgment is one in which the trial court "had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the......