American Rodsmiths, Inc., Robert Scherer and Sandra Scherer v. GLV International, Inc ( 2013 )

Opinion issued May 2, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00477-CV
———————————
AMERICAN RODSMITHS, INC., ROBERT SCHERER AND SANDRA
SCHERER, Appellants
V.
GLV INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2012-08551
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a Texas proceeding to domesticate a state of Washington judgment,
appellants, American Rodsmiths, Inc. (“ARS”), Robert Scherer, and Sandra
Scherer, challenge the jurisdiction of a Washington state district court to enter the
judgment in favor of appellee, GLV International, Incorporated (“GLV”), against
ARS, Robert Scherer, and “Jane Doe Scherer.” Concluding that we lack
jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
Background
On December 2, 2010, GLV sued ARS, Robert Scherer, and “Jane Doe
Scherer,” “Husband and Wife and the Marital Community Comprised Thereof” in
the Washington state district court for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
the enforcement of a personal guaranty on a debt. On September 23, 2011, the
Washington district court granted GLV summary judgment against ARS, Robert
Scherer, and “Jane Doe” Scherer, awarding damages in the amount of
$342,497.13. ARS and Robert Scherer appealed the summary judgment on
November 22, 2011.
On February 9, 2012, GLV filed a petition in the Harris County district court
below to enforce the Washington judgment against ARS, Robert Scherer, and his
wife, Sandra Scherer. On March 8, 2012, ARS, Robert Scherer, and Sandra
Scherer filed a motion, seeking to stay enforcement of the Washington judgment. 1
They further challenged the judgment on the ground that it was entered against
1
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 35.006 (Vernon 2008).
2
Sandra Scherer in violation of her due process rights.2 On May 18, 2012, the trial
court granted the stay indefinitely.
Dismissal
This Court notified the parties that it intended to dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction and invited briefing on the issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Appellants are challenging the Washington judgment that was rendered final and
enforceable in Texas when GLV filed it in the Harris County district court in
compliance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”).
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 35.003 (Vernon 2008) (instructing
district court clerk to treat the foreign judgment in same manner as judgment of
that court itself); Walnut Equip. Leasing Co. v. Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex.
1996). The filing of the foreign judgment effectively comprises both a plaintiff’s
original petition and a final judgment. Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286.
The enforcement of a foreign judgment may be stayed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE ANN. § 35.006 (Vernon 2008). However, section 35.006 does not
provide that such an order is appealable. And, here, the order granting the stay
does not dispose of all the issues and parties, specifically, appellants’ attack on the
jurisdiction of the Washington district court. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).
2
See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
3
A foreign judgment filed in a Texas court is subject to the same procedures,
defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, enforcing or satisfying
a judgment as a judgment of the court in which it is filed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 35.003; Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286. The judgment debtor may
then initiate the same defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying
a final judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 35.003(c).
In support of their assertion that this Court should view their motion to stay
the enforcement, which included a challenge to the Washington court’s
jurisdiction, as a motion for new trial, which was in effect denied, appellants rely
on Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, no pet.).
Appellants acknowledge that their jurisdictional challenge was not addressed by
the trial court, but nevertheless, argue that it was overruled by operation of law
after seventy-five days. However, in Moncrief, the court simply addressed the
appellate timetables for attacking a foreign judgment. 805 S.W.2d at 22. The
purpose of making a procedural comparison of a motion to contest enforcement of
a foreign judgment to a motion for new trial is to note that a trial court has the
same extended period of time to review a motion to contest a foreign judgment as
it would have if a party filed a motion for new trial. Counsel Fin. Servs, L.L.C. v.
David McQuade Leibowitz, P.C., 311 S.W.3d 45, 52 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2010, pet. denied) (noting that “[t]o compel a judgment debtor to perfect an appeal
4
within thirty days of the filing of the foreign judgment would minimize the trial
court’s opportunity to review the debtor’s motion to contest recognition of the
foreign judgment.”). Thus, the court in Moncrief “merely explain[ed] that for the
purposes of appellate timetables, a motion to stop enforcement of a judgment filed
pursuant to the UEFJA operates procedurally as a motion for new trial.” Id. at 53.
Here, the Harris County district court granted appellants the relief that they
requested—a stay of the enforcement of the Washington judgment. And it did not
dispose of all the issues and parties. Accordingly, we conclude that we do not have
jurisdiction over the appeal.
Conclusion
We dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
5