Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On May 5, 2003, the trial court signed an amended order on applications for temporary injunction that required the relator to subordinate his lien on certain property to a lender selected by the real parties in interest (hereinafter the “plaintiffs”). On Nov. 19, 2003, this court modified the injunction and affirmed the injunction as modified. On Feb. 19, 2004, the trial court signed an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for contempt for defendant’s failure to comply with order to execute subordination agreement (“contempt order”). On Feb. 23, 2004, the relator filed his amended application for writ of habeas corpus. HOLDING:Granted. A contempt order must be based on one’s “disobedience of an order that spells out”the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms so that such person will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon him.’” Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding). To sentence a person to confinement for disobedience of a prior order, such prior order “‘must carry with it no uncertainty, and must not be susceptible of different meanings or constructions, but must be in the form of a command, and when tested by itself, must speak definitely the meaning and purpose of the court in ordering.’” Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding). Here, the relator signed and submitted to the trial court two subordination agreements. Because no evidence was taken at the hearing on the contempt motion, there is no evidence to support a finding that either of relator’s subordination agreements do not satisfy the terms of the injunction order. Nothing in the record indicates whether plaintiffs’ lender, Merrill Lynch, would have accepted or rejected the relator’s proposed agreements or that any language in these agreements was inadequate to complete the required subordination to Merrill Lynch. On the other hand, nothing in the record supports the relator’s contention that he has complied with the injunction order merely because he submitted two signed subordination agreements containing language to his satisfaction. Because no evidence supports a finding that the relator’s failure to sign the Merrill Lynch agreement constitutes a violation of the injunction order, the relator cannot be held in constructive contempt for failing to sign the Merrill Lynch agreement. The plaintiffs also assert that the relator’s refusal to sign the Merrill Lynch agreement amounted to direct contempt. A trial court may not convert constructive contempt into direct contempt if an individual does no more than assert his defense to or an explanation of the charge against him. Although the relator refused to sign the Merrill Lynch agreement in the court’s presence, he did so as the basis of his defense to the charge that he had disobeyed the injunction order. Therefore, the relator cannot be held in direct contempt for asserting his defense to the charge against him. The court states that this conclusion should not be interpreted as a holding that the relator ultimately cannot be held in contempt for refusing to sign the Merrill Lynch subordination agreement. The injunction order and the court’s holding in Khaledi v. H.K. Global Trading Ltd., 126 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App. � San Antonio 2003, no pet.), require the relator to sign a subordination agreement � a command with which the relator agrees he must comply. The court’s conclusion here is only that the contempt order is void because it is not supported by evidence that relator disobeyed the injunction order. OPINION:Marion, J.; Stone, Green and Marion, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.