Wilcoxon v. Sparkie Props.

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE
• Docket Number: 11-23-00292-CV
• Decision Date: 31 December 2025
• Citation: Wilcoxon v. Sparkie Props., 11-23-00292-CV (Tex. App. Dec 31, 2025)
• Parties: BENTON WILCOXON, Appellant v. SPARKIE PROPERTIES LLC., Appellee

1

BENTON WILCOXON, Appellant v. SPARKIE PROPERTIES LLC., Appellee

No. 11-23-00292-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

December 31, 2025

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV58242

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

This is an appeal from the trial court's order appointing a receiver. In two issues, Appellant, Benton Wilcoxon, appeals the trial court's order. We affirm.

Background Facts

In December 2021, Appellee, Sparkie Properties LLC., sued Wilcoxon and NextMetals, LTD for breach of promissory notes. On September 2, 2022, the trial court rendered a default judgment against Wilcoxon and NextMetals, awarding Sparkie in excess of one million dollars for the amounts owed under the promissory notes plus accrued interest, postjudgment interest, court costs, and attorney's fees.

Because the judgment remained unpaid, Sparkie filed a motion seeking a turnover order in November. In its motion, Sparkie sought the turnover of certain issued and outstanding shares of NEXT-ChemX (a Nevada corporation). Sparkie alleged that the shares were owned by NEXT-ChemX Corp/TX (a Texas corporation), which was owned in part by judgment debtors Wilcoxon and NextMetals.

The trial court signed the first turnover order on December 1 2022. The trial court ordered Equity Stock Transfer to turnover and deliver to Sparkie "all of the stock certificates, books, records or other property of, or belonging to, or held by" Wilcoxon and NextMetals in NEXT-ChemX (Nevada), NEXT-ChemX (Texas), or any other company.

On January 10, 2023, Wilcoxon and NextMetals filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order requesting that the trial court sign a temporary restraining order that would "restrain [Sparkie] from executing with respect to the Order covering the transfer of the stipulated shares in NEXT-CHEMX CORPORATION (Nevada) to SPARKIE for a period of fourteen (14) days from the entry of the TRO order requested herein."

On February 22, 2023, Wilcoxon and NextMetals also filed a Supplement of Information in Support of Relief Requested which provided certain documentation including "[a] Letter from Andro AG confirming liquidation of Nextmetals, LTD assets which will provide necessary funds to settle this matter and pay the judgment ordered." On the same day, Wilcoxon and NextMetals filed a Motion to Withdraw Pleadings, in which they asked the trial court to "order that the listed pleadings be withdrawn, and to proceed to adjudicate the merits of the bill of review" that was filed in a separate cause number. The pleadings that Wilcoxon and NextMetals sought to be withdrawn included the Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed on January 10.

Sparkie sought a second turnover order due to the termination of the stock transfer agent referenced in the first turnover order. Sparkie's application for the second turnover order included, as evidence of the judgment debtors' nonexempt property, attached exhibits and explanations of those exhibits.

The trial court signed a second turnover order on June 13, 2023. The second turnover order contained a finding by the trial court "[t]hat NEXT-ChemX Texas holds non-exempt property owned by one or more of the Judgment Debtors." It ordered NEXT-ChemX (Texas) to turn over nonexempt property owned by NextMetals, as well as corporate documents and other evidence of ownership of stock connected to NextMetals and Wilcoxon. The second turnover order also ordered Wilcoxon, NextMetals, and any third parties in possession of property of either Wilcoxon or NextMetals to turn over any records related to or evidence of nonexempt property held by either. ^[1]

With the judgment still unpaid in October 2023, Sparkie moved to depose Wilcoxon. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the deposition to be taken within thirty days of October 5, 2023. After being noticed with the deposition, Wilcoxon filed a Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. He asked the trial court to "quash the Notice of Deposition" and enter a protective order or "such other and further relief that may be awarded at law or in equity." He stated he would agree to a deposition taking place "in late November or December."

In November, Sparkie filed a motion for sanctions as well as a request for the trial court to appoint a receiver against Wilcoxon and NextMetals. The trial court signed an order on December 11, 2023, appointing Glenn A. Little, Sparkie's manager, as receiver of the estate of Benton Wilcoxon.

Wilcoxon filed a Notice of Appeal on December 20, 2023, that stated that "Wilcoxon desires to appeal the order appointing receiver as well as any final judgments in this case."

Analysis

Wilcoxon raises two issues on appeal. In his first issue, Wilcoxon challenges the trial court's turnover orders, asserting the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and NextMetals to enter the turnover orders. In his second issue, Wilcoxon contends that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a receiver without sufficient proof that the property was owned by him.

We review both a turnover order and an order appointing a receiver under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991) (turnover order standard); Moyer v. Moyer, 183 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (receivership order standard). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts "without reference to any guiding rules and principles, such that its ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable." Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007) (citing Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex. 2004)).

Wilcoxen's Attempt to Challenge the Turnover Orders

"The Texas turnover statute provides judgment creditors with a procedural device to assist them in satisfying their judgment debts." Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., L.P., 540 S.W.3d 577 581 (Tex. 2018) (per curiam), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Vaccaro v. Raymond James & Assoc., Inc., 655 S.W.3d 485, 489 n.3 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2022, no pet.). When an underlying judgment remains unpaid, the statute allows a judgment creditor to seek assistance from a court of appropriate jurisdiction in reaching the judgment debtor's nonexempt property. Id.; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 31.002 (West 2020). Pursuant to the statute, a court may order a judgment debtor to "turn over nonexempt property that is in the debtor's possession or is subject to the debtor's control, together with all documents or records related to the property, to a designated sheriff or constable for execution." Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 31.002(b)(1). Alternatively, a court may "appoint a receiver with the authority to take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment." Id. § 31.002(b)(3).

In his first issue, Wilcoxon challenges the first two turnover orders. He contends that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, NextMetals, and the non-parties referenced in the orders. As set forth below, Wilcoxon cannot challenge the turnover orders in this appeal. In this regard, the turnover orders were appealable orders that should have been timely appealed to challenge their provisions.

Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005). Ordinarily, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment or appealable order is signed by the trial court. Tex.R.App.P. 26.1.

A turnover order that acts as a mandatory injunction is a final, appealable judgment. Alexander Dubose, 540 S.W.3d at 586-87 (citing Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Dallas, 810 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Tex. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by In re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2004). A turnover order functions as a mandatory injunction if it requires a party to take affirmative action. See id. at 587 (citing Prodeco Expl., Inc. v. Ware, 684 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ) (explaining that portions of an order that require affirmative action are injunctive in nature)); see also Kennedy v. Hudnall, 249 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (declining to view an order as a mandatory injunction because it did not require the judgment debtor or transferee to take any affirmative action); Robison v. Watson, No. 04-20-00138-CV, 2021 WL 2117936, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio May 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding turnover orders were in the nature of a mandatory injunction where they ordered the parties to take some affirmative action).

The first and second turnover orders both function as mandatory injunctions because they both order Wilcoxon, NextMetals, or third-party holders of their nonexempt property to turn over such nonexempt property or the documents related to it. See Alexander Dubose, 540 S.W.3d at 587. Because each turnover order required affirmative action by a party, they functioned as final, appealable judgments.^[2] Id. Neither turnover order was timely appealed. The trial court signed the first turnover order on December 2, 2022, and the second turnover order on June 13, 2023. Wilcoxon did not file his Notice of Appeal until December 20, 2023, over a year after the first turnover order and 190 days after the second turnover order. The receivership order of December 11, 2023, is the only order Wilcoxon timely appealed from. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

Because Wilcoxon did not timely appeal either...