Ex parte Pryor, C-9981
| Decision Date | 19 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C-9981,C-9981 |
| Parties | Ex parte William Evans PRYOR, Relator. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. Relator William Evans Pryor appeals a contempt order entered by Judge Bob Robertson of the 308th District Court of Harris County. The order committing William to the Harris County jail arose from his failure to execute and transfer certain documents to his ex-wife, Lilly Kucera Pryor, after the district court entered a final divorce decree. We deny the requested relief and remand William to the custody of the Harris County Sheriff.
The divorce decree, entered by the district court on April 17, 1990, ordered William to transfer and deliver: 1) two sets of deeds, 2) a letter transferring a country club membership, and 3) assignments of royalty interests, to Lilly on April 18, 1990. William failed to execute these transfers. On April 23, Lilly filed a contempt motion to enforce the divorce decree. On May 17, while Lilly's contempt motion was still pending, William filed a motion for a new trial. On June 15, the pending motions were considered by the trial court. First, the court overruled William's motion for new trial. Second, the court found William in contempt and sentenced him to serve 30 days in the Harris County jail and remain there until he purged himself by executing the transfers. In an original proceeding, William filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which denied his requested relief without a written opinion.
William's main contention before this Court is that the district court did not have the power to issue a contempt order in this situation because the judgment was not yet final. William argues that Rule 329b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure gives the court plenary power for thirty days after a motion for new trial has been overruled. He reasons that because the court has the power to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment during the plenary period, the judgment is not final and a contempt order cannot be issued based on it.
In support of his contention, William relies on three decisions from the courts of appeals, Ex parte Oliver, 713 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986, no writ), aff'd on reh'g, 716 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986, no writ); Ex parte Valdez, 521 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ); and Ex parte Bible, 596 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, no writ). Oliver and Bible follow the holding of Valdez. In Valdez, the trial court issued a contempt order before it ruled on a motion for new trial filed by the party aggrieved by the trial court's judgment. The Valdez court held that the trial court's judgment did not become final until the motion for new trial was overruled. Ex parte Valdez, 521 S.W.2d at 726. Even if we were to assume this holding was correct, the present case is distinguishable. William's motion for new trial was overruled before the trial court issued a contempt order. Therefore, the holding of Valdez does not help William in this situation. We are certainly not in favor of taking the questionable logic from Valdez and extending it to encompass the trial court's plenary period and further hinder the trial court's ability to enforce its orders.
The power to punish for contempt is an inherent power of a court and an essential element of judicial independence and authority. Ex parte Gorena, 595 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex.1979); see also Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 21.001 (Vernon 1988). This Court has recognized that this power enables courts to persuade parties to obey an order or decree of the court so that the order will not be rendered ineffectual by recalcitrant litigants. Ex parte Gorena, 595 S.W.2d at 844. If this Court were to adopt William's argument, this power would be greatly impaired. The district court would have to wait until the plenary period...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger v. Sebek
...conduct on April 10. 34 1. The trial court's power Texas trial courts have an inherent power to punish for contempt. Ex parte Pryor, 800 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.1990); Owens-Corning, 807 S.W.2d at 415. This inherent power has been codified in the Texas Government Code. See TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. ......
-
Ex parte Chambers
...of the Texas Government Code. I disagree once more. Courts have inherent power to find parties before them in contempt. Ex parte Pryor, 800 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.1990); see TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 21.001 (stating that courts have all necessary power to enforce lawful orders and to control pro......
-
Salas v. Chris Christensen Sys. Inc.
...to obey an order of the court so that the order will not be rendered ineffectual by recalcitrant litigants.Id. (citing Ex parte Pryor, 800 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex. 1990)). "[T]he underlying concern that gave rise to the contempt power was not . . . merely the disruption of court proceedings. R......
-
Stauffer v. Nicholson
...deter other litigants from violating the discovery rules, and punish parties who violate the discovery rules); Ex parte Pryor, 800 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.1990) (a contempt order involves a court's enforcement of its own orders); see generallyTex.R. Civ. P. 308 (court's power to enforce its ju......