Rosser v. Squier

Decision Date29 June 1995
Docket NumberNo. 95-0370,95-0370
Citation902 S.W.2d 962
Parties38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 988 Thomas Johnson ROSSER, Relator, v. The Honorable James D. SQUIER, Judge, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Herbert Neil Lackshin, Houston, for relator.

Reginald A. Hirsch, Houston, Dennis B. Kelly, The Law Offices of Dennis B. Kelly, Stewart W. Gagnon, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Jean Rosser filed a contempt motion against her former husband, Thomas Johnson Rosser, alleging six counts of contempt. After notice and hearing, the trial court convicted Thomas of all six counts of contempt, and assessed no confinement, but as punishment assessed a fine of $45,000.00 payable to a third party. Thomas seeks mandamus relief against this order and related orders.

Habeas corpus relief is not available because there is no physical restraint. Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.1985). To the extent that Thomas seeks mandamus relief from a fine assessed under a contempt order because the excessive amount of the fine was void, this court will entertain mandamus jurisdiction. Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824 (1960); see also Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 n. 1 (Tex.App.--Austin 1990, orig. proceeding). Under TEX. GOV'T CODE § 21.002(b), the trial court lacks jurisdiction to assess a fine of more than $500 for each contempt. Ex parte Carey, 704 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.1967). The fine beyond the maximum is void. For six counts, the maximum fine is $3,000.00.

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus directing Judge Squier to reduce the fine to $3,000 payable to the court, because his contempt judgment conflicts with TEX.GOV'T CODE § 21.002(b), Ex parte Carey, and Ex parte Campbell. TEX.R.APP.P. 122. All relief not expressly granted is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • In re Reece
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 27, 2011
    ...involve confinement cannot be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus, and the only possible relief is a writ of mandamus.”); Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex.1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (entertaining the exercise of mandamus jurisdiction to determine whether fine-only contemp......
  • Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 2018
    ...to direct appeal of a contempt order. In re Cisneros , 487 S.W.3d 237, 243 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) ; see also Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995) (appellate courts lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court's actions in holding an individual in contempt, t......
  • Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2017
    ...to direct appeal of a contempt order. In re Cisneros, 487 S.W.3d 237, 243 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2015, no pet.); see also Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995) (appellate courts lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court's actions in holding an individual in contempt, th......
  • Brown v. De La Cruz
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • December 3, 2004
    ...Gen. Laws 2345, 2591 (current version at Tex. Nat. Res.Code § 111.263). 18. Agey, 172 S.W.2d at 974. 19. Id. 20. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex.1995) (noting contempt fine is payable to the court); Sportscoach Corp. of Am., Inc. v. Eastex Camper Sales, Inc., 31 S.W.3d 730, 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT