Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. D-4090,D-4090 |
| Citation | 870 S.W.2d 18 |
| Parties | Brad STEWART, Petitioner, v. USA CUSTOM PAINT & BODY SHOP, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Brett W. Arnold, Houston, for petitioner.
L. David Sosebee, Richmond and Kenneth L. Smith, Houston, for respondent.
At issue is the validity of the judgment underlying a writ of garnishment. This case requires that we decide whether a captionless sheet purporting to dismiss an undesignated case and a later attached computer printout listing a number of cases meet the requisites of a valid judgment, dismissing one of the cases included on the printout. The trial court concluded that the case had not been dismissed and the court of appeals reversed. 856 S.W.2d 227. For the reasons explained herein, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 1985, Brad Stewart (Stewart) sued USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc. (USA Custom) for damages allegedly arising from a car repair. In response to the trial court's notice, Stewart timely filed a motion to retain to prevent dismissal of his suit for want of prosecution. On October 20, 1987, the trial court signed a captionless sheet, noting the dismissal of a case for want of prosecution. 1 Subsequently, Stewart's case was included on a computer printout listing a number of cases dismissed for want of prosecution. The printout has a run date of October 24, 1987, four days after the trial court signed the captionless sheet. At some point, the computer list and the captionless sheet were stapled together and placed in Stewart's file. Although it is unclear how any error in including Stewart's case on the dismissal list came to light, in April and May 1990 correction reports noted that the dismissal was erroneous and the case was reactivated. The trial court rendered a nihil dicit judgment against USA Custom in March 1991.
In November 1991, Stewart initiated this proceeding by filing for a writ of garnishment against Lockwood National Bank, claiming that it had possession of USA Custom's funds. Stewart based his request for garnishment on the nihil dicit judgment against USA Custom. USA Custom intervened and filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment, asserting that the nihil dicit judgment was void because it was signed after the trial court's jurisdiction had expired. USA Custom argued that the trial court had lost jurisdiction because it already had rendered judgment by dismissing the suit for want of prosecution. USA Custom further argued that, because the suit was never reinstated and because there was no evidence of a clerical error in rendering judgment, the judgment became final. After a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment, allowing garnishment from any accounts held at Lockwood National Bank in the name of USA Custom, overruling the motion to dissolve in relation to those accounts, but granting the motion to dissolve with respect to any other accounts. Finding that there had been a dismissal for want of prosecution so that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it entered the nihil dicit judgment against USA Custom, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for Lockwood National Bank, quashing the writ of garnishment. 2
Because this is a collateral attack, USA Custom must show that the nihil dicit judgment is void. Kelly v. Gibbs, 84 Tex. 143, 19 S.W. 563, 563 (1892) (); Tom Benson Chevrolet Co. v. Beall, 567 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( that, in a writ of garnishment proceeding, the attack on the underlying judgment must show that it is nonexistent or void); see Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex. 524, 531 (1882) (); Owen Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Brite Day Constr., Inc., 821 S.W.2d 283, 287 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (). In a collateral attack, the judgment under attack is presumed valid. White v. White, 142 Tex. 499, 179 S.W.2d 503, 506 (1944); Bouldin v. Miller, 87 Tex. 359, 28 S.W. 940, 941 (1894).
Stewart contends that the captionless sheet, although it was titled as an order of dismissal, was not sufficiently definite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Map Res., Inc.
...presumption disappears when the record affirmatively reveals a jurisdictional defect. Id. at 273 (citing Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc. , 870 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1994) and Alfonso v. Skadden , 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 2008) ). However, to rise to the level of a defect violatin......
-
Gainous v. Gainous, No. 01-04-00427-CV (Tex. App. 8/24/2006)
...order is presumed valid, and the party challenging it has the burden to show that it is void. See Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1994) (presumption); Armentor, 178 S.W.3d at 149 3. The Validity of the QDRO's DROP Provisions If Brenda is correct that t......
-
Gainous v. Gainous
...order is presumed valid, and the party challenging it has the burden to show that it is void. See Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.1994) (presumption); Armentor, 178 S.W.3d at 149 3. The Validity of the QDRO's DROP Provisions If Brenda is correct that th......
-
EDWIN REISS v. GLORIA JEAN REISS
...Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990). One may collaterally attack only a void judgment. See Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1994). Edwin acknowledges his is a collateral 2. Edwin's Line of Case Law A court has wide discretion in dividing co......