Ex parte Hudson

• Citation: 917 S.W.2d 24
• Decision Date: 09 February 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-1294,94-1294
• Parties: 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 269 Ex parte Jim HUDSON, Relator.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Page 24

917 S.W.2d 24

39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 269

Ex parte Jim HUDSON, Relator.

No. 94-1294.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1996.

William E. Trantham, Michele I. Ritter, Dallas, for relator.

John L. Hubble, Harvey G. Joseph, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this original habeas corpus proceeding Jim Hudson seeks relief from an order of the district court that he be fined and jailed in punishment for his violation of an injunction, and that he remain confined until he has complied with the injunction. We agree with Hudson that the order punishes him more than once for the same offense, and we therefore set aside the punishment portion of the order. We do not agree, however, with Hudson's challenges to the coercive portion of the order.

The City of Mesquite annexed land owned by Hudson and his mother on which Hudson operated an auto body shop and junk yard. The City set a deadline for the Hudsons to discontinue this use of their property since it did not conform to City ordinances. On appeal by the Hudsons, the district court by judgment dated April 14, 1986 upheld the City's ruling, found that the land's condition and use violated various ordinances and was a common law nuisance, and enjoined the Hudsons to immediately:

Remove all buses, automobiles, and aircraft and parts and portions [thereof] together with all salvage items, scrap metal, junk, trash and debris and all items stored on said property and cease and desist from storing of such items thereon until such time as such land shall lawfully be zoned....

Remove all structures on the premises or repair same to meet City of Mesquite code requirements....

* * * * * *

Clear and clean premises and cut and remove grass and weeds and maintain same in a sightly condition.

The judgment also provided that:

Automotive painting and repairs may be conducted within an existing metal building without substantial structural alteration.

... Damaged vehicles may be stored outside when screened in accordance with City's outside storage requirements ... but are limited to passenger type vehicles and small trucks or vans (under two ton rated carrying capacity) and specifically excluding buses and large (over two ton) trucks. Outside storage of such vehicles is limited to vehicles on the premises for repair and a maximum period of six months for which any one vehicle may remain on the premises. No vehicles may be on the premises for the salvage of parts. Repaired vehicles may be sold from the premises but no general used automobile sales lot may be operated. Repaired vehicles shall be deemed vehicles on which substantial repairs have been performed of a fair market value of not less than [$300] and no more than six (6) vehicles may be displayed for sale at one time.

A few days later the City moved for contempt. In an order issued May 9, 1986, the district court denied the City's motion. By order issued December 2, 1986, however, presumably in response to a second motion for contempt, the district court adjudged Hudson guilty of contempt and fined him $740. The district court again found Hudson in contempt on September 10, 1987, and fined him $25 per day from October 14, 1986 through July 20, 1987, a total of $7,000. In 1990, the City again moved for contempt but apparently abandoned its motion before the district court ruled on it.

In 1994 the City moved for contempt yet again. This time the case was tried to a jury. The jury found that Hudson had willfully violated the injunction continuously from July 21, 1987 to October 18, 1994--2,644 days. Based upon the verdict, the district court fined Hudson $30,000, and ordered him jailed for thirty days and until he complied with certain terms of the original injunction, specifically:

(1) remove all buses, automobile and aircraft and parts and portions of buses, automobiles and aircraft together with all salvage items, scrap metal, junk, trash, and debris and all items stored on said property;

(2) remove or repair to City Code the structures other than the metal building in which the auto paint and body work is conducted; and

(3) clear and clean the premises.

The judge explained from the bench that $30,000 was a reasonable fine, given the number of days Hudson was clearly in violation, and that although "it may be that each day was not a separate act," the "days during which the refusal to obey occurs should be some indication of the degree of punishment which should be rendered."

Hudson did not pay the fine or otherwise act to purge himself of contempt. The court of appeals denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court ordered him released on $1,000 bond.

Hudson argues that he has been punished more than once for the same offense and, because of the several prior contempt proceedings, has been put in jeopardy more than once for the same violation. In Ex parte Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225 (1945), this Court explained It would hardly be contended that after a court has punished a party to the limit of the statute for a violation of its injunction and such party has paid the penalty imposed upon him, he could thereafter violate the injunction with impunity and the court would be powerless to punish him therefor.... Neither could it reasonably be contended that the trial court could divide one contemptuous act into thirty separate acts and assess the maximum punishment provided by statute for each of such acts. Had the relator been charged with but one continuous act of...