Knoles, Patrick v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2012 )

1)ISN’IISS; Opinion issued December 21, 2012
in The
niirt tif \ppraIi
iftI! ttrirt uf xas at 3at1ai
No. 05-12-00473-CV
PATRICK KNOLES, Appellant
V.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AND COLLIN COUNTY, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 006-01594-2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Chief Justice Wright
At issue in this appeal are two post-judgment orders—the trial court’s (1) April 11, 2012
order denying Patrick Knoles’s emergency motion to quash or stay writ of execution and prohibiting
him from filing any instrument “of any kind or nature” challenging “in any manner” the execution
ofthe writ: and (2) April 24, 2012 order sanctioning Knoles’ s counsel for actions taken in connection
with the writ. The orders follow the trial court’s unappealed December 2011 final judgment
awarding Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. possession of certain real property occupied by Knoles. Because
an order incident to a writ of execution is not appealable, we directed the parties to file letter briefs
addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Qualia v Qualia, 37 S.W.3d 128, 129 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.).
Citing iing/in u. [)rennon, 324 SW 3d )C() ( 1ev, 2010) (per curiam). Knoles argues in his
letter brief that. because both orders djudicat[ed a new set o lact issues not addressed in the
cases underlying judgment and followed a conventional trial on the merits.” they are “presumed
to dispose of all issues and parties” and are appealable final judgments .324 S.W.3d at 563 (trial
courts judgment after conventional trial on merits is final br purposes of appeal). Wells Fargo did
not respond, but Collin County counters that although the court may have considered “a new set of
fact issues,” the orders served to enforce and protect the judgment of possession and were not
“transformed” into final judgments by the adjudication of new facts. Collin County argues further,
in a motion to dismiss filed subsequent to its letter brief, that we lack subject matterjurisdiction over
the sanctions order because the trial court sanctioned Knoles’s counsel, not Knoles, and counsel did
not appeal .,See 11 i//jams i’. (‘olihursi. 253 S.W.3d 353. 367 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008. no pet.)
(“appealing [parties 1 may not complain of errors that do not injuriously alThct Ithemi or that merely
affect the rights of others. ) (quoting Torringlon (. v. Siuizman. 46 S.W.3d 829. 843) (Tex. 2000)).
We agree with Collin County.
Nothing in the record suggests the orders were issued for a purpose other than to aid in the
enforcement of the judgment. Moreover, as Collin County points out, Knoles has no standing to
appeal the order imposing sanctions solely against his counsel. See Bahar i’. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc.,
330 S.W.3d 379. 388 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010. pet. denied). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal. We grant Collin County’s motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal.
See TEX. R. Aip. P. 42.3(a).
CAROL’N VvRlCi[ll
CHII”F JLSTICE
120473F.P05
nitrt nf ipia1i
.Fift1i Jitrirt nf Lcxa at Da11t
JUDGMENT
PATRICK KNOI uS. Appellant Appeal from the Count Court at Law No. 6
of Collin County. fexas. (Tr.Ct.No. 006—
No. 05-12-00473-CV 01594-201 1).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ANI) COLLIN Justices Francis and Lang-Miers participating.
COUNTY, Appellees
In accordance with this Courts opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORI)FR
that appellees Wells Fargo Bank. N.A. and Coflin County recover their costs, if any. of this appeal
from appellant Patrick Knoles.
Judgment entered December 21. 2012.
C \ROLYN WRIGI-l 1
CHIEF JUS1I(E