Ex parte Lee
| Decision Date | 12 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4726,C-4726 |
| Citation | 704 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | Ex parte Roy A. LEE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
R. Mayo Davidson, Austin, for relator.
Bush & Jones, Gene Bush and Bill R. Jones, Livingston, for respondent.
ORIGINAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
In this original habeas corpus proceeding, relator, Roy A. Lee, was jailed under a Writ of Attachment and Commitment in Contempt dated July 25, 1985. The commitment order is based on a non-existent contempt order, and is invalid. Relator Lee is ordered discharged.
Peoples State Bank recovered a default judgment against Lee and served Lee a Request for Production of Documents in Aid of Judgment. When Lee did not respond, the Bank moved for an order to compel. The San Jacinto County District Court ordered Lee to produce the documents. On January 30, 1985, the Bank served Lee another Request for Documents in Aid of Judgment, and also served interrogatories on Lee. On March 7, the Bank moved for an order to compel the production of these documents and answers to the interrogatories. There was no hearing on this motion.
On April 9, the Bank moved to have Lee found in contempt of court. Lee was ordered to appear on May 23, but the hearing was changed to May 30. On May 30, Lee did not appear, and the trial court rendered a Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment. The judgment and order recited that Lee had been ordered to answer interrogatories and produce the documents. Lee was ordered to pay a $500 fine, and ordered confined in the San Jacinto County jail for 120 days and until he purged himself by answering the interrogatories, producing the documents, and paying court costs. Although a writ of attachment issued, Lee was never jailed.
On July 25, the trial court issued an Order Directing Writ of Attachment. The order stated that on July 25, a hearing was held on the April 9th Motion for Contempt, and the motion was "well taken." The trial court ordered the clerk to issue a Writ of Attachment and Commitment in Contempt. The order, issued by the clerk, stated that Lee was "adjudged to be in contempt of court on the 25th day of July, 1985, by the District Court of San Jacinto County." There is no July 25th contempt order, and no contempt hearing was held on July 25.
This writ of habeas corpus is granted and Lee is discharged because the commitment order refers to a non-existent judgment of contempt. The commitment order is not based on the May 30th contempt order. A written judgment of contempt and a written commitment order are necessary to imprison a person for civil constructive contempt of court. Ex parte...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Linder
...to perform. He argues that because this portion of the contempt order is void, the entire order itself is void. See Ex parte Lee, 704 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Gonzalez, 414 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.1967). Although relator correctly cites Lee and Gonzalez, the rationale of those cases ......
-
Ex parte Dolenz, 05-94-01853-CV
...matters, a trial court may treat the failure to obey an order as a contempt of court. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 215(2)(b)(6); Ex parte Lee, 704 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.1986) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Conway, 843 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The trial court c......
-
Ex parte Herrera
...to pay a lump sum which included amounts which could not be the basis of a contempt at the time of the contempt hearing); Ex parte Lee, 704 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.1986) (contempt order void because order stated adjudged to be in contempt on July 25, 1985 rather than May 30, 1985, actual date of......
-
Ex parte Roan
...for more than one contemptuous act, and one of the acts is not punishable by contempt, the entire judgment is void. Ex parte Lee, 704 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.1986) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Linder, 783 S.W.2d 754, 758 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1990, orig. proceeding). Because the whole judgment is vo......