Ex parte Boniface, C-1931
| Decision Date | 25 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1931,C-1931 |
| Parties | Ex parte Edwin C. BONIFACE, Relator. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Law Office of Don Busby, Jack Jones, Temple, for relator.
Cuba, Simmon and Mayfield, Randall Simmon and Mark Steven Mayfield, Temple, for respondent.
This is an original habeas corpus proceeding by which Edwin C. Boniface seeks his release from custody of the sheriff of Bell County for failure to make Civil Service retirement benefit payments to his ex-wife. The sole question here is whether the district court had jurisdiction to conduct a contempt proceeding during the pendency of the appeal. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction; therefore, the contempt order committing Boniface to jail is void.
On May 26, 1982 the 169th District Court of Bell County entered a final judgment directing Boniface to make monthly retirement benefit payments to his former wife. Boniface timely perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District by filing a cost bond. He did not file a supersedeas bond in connection with the appeal. Thereafter, Boniface failed to make the monthly retirement benefit payments. On December 22, 1982, the district court heard evidence establishing that Boniface was in arrears, held him in contempt of court and committed him to jail. Boniface argues that the contempt order was void since he had appealed the final judgment to the court of appeals prior to the contempt hearing in the trial court. The respondent urges that since Boniface did not file a supersedeas bond, the trial court retained jurisdiction to punish him for contempt. The court of appeals denied habeas corpus relief. 646 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.App.--Austin 1983).
The question of whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings for a violation of its order, after that order has been appealed, is addressed in Ex Parte Travis, 123 Tex. 480, 73 S.W.2d 487, 489 (1934).
Generally contempt proceedings for violations of judgments and orders granting injunctive relief are instituted in the court from which the judgment or order emanated. But, after the jurisdiction of the appellate court has attached, the proceedings for enforcement must be instituted in that court rather than in the trial court. 13 Mitchell and Gilbert, Texas Practices, § 3291 (1970).
The cases which state the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Taylor
...vested with jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive provisions by contempt." Id. (emphasis added) (citing inter alia Ex parte Boniface, 650 S.W.2d 776, 777-78 (Tex. 1983)). If an evidentiary hearing is needed, the appeals court can refer the case to the trial court for that hearing. In so ho......
-
In re Sheshtawy
...jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree by contempt once he perfected his appeal. Adel Sheshtawy relies on this Court's decisions in Ex parte Boniface14 and Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas 15 in support of his In denying Adel Sheshtawy's petition for writs o......
-
Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Dallas
...in the appeal, the appellate court alone is vested with jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive provisions by contempt. Ex parte Boniface, 650 S.W.2d 776, 777-78 (Tex.1983); Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.1976); Ex parte Duncan, 127 Tex. 507, 95 S.W.2d 675 (1936); Ex parte Travis......
-
In re Miller
...or other security adequately protects the plaintiff's interests. SeeTex. Prop.Code Ann. § 12.008 (West 2004). Relying on Ex Parte Boniface, 650 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.1983), Miller argues that, once jurisdiction over the appeal vested in our court, the Brazoria County Court “was prohibited from ta......