Chad Glasshoff v. John Wesley Vaughn

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00135-CV
CHAD GLASSHOFF,
Appellant
v.
JOHN WESLEY VAUGHN,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-000812-CV-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chad Glasshoff appeals from a judgment rendered against him for damages,
mental anguish, and attorney's fees for torts committed against John Vaughn over the
course of many years. In eleven issues, Glasshoff complains that: (1) the trial court
abused its discretion by proceeding to trial despite a stay order being in place; (2) abused
its discretion by imposing "death-penalty" sanctions against him for failure to answer
discovery; (3) erred by awarding damages for shooting a dog that was barred by the
statute of limitations; that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support
an award for (4) assault, (5) stalking, (6) negligence, and (7) gross negligence; (8) that the
amount of damages awarded was excessive pursuant to the evidence presented; (9) erred
by the award of damages for physical pain and mental anguish; (10) erred in the date set
forth to begin pre-judgment interest; and (11) erred in awarding attorney's fees for which
there was no legal basis. Because we find that the trial court erred by commencing the
trial in violation of the stay order without proper or adequate notice that it had been
reinstated, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
In his first issue, Glasshoff complains that the trial court erred by conducting the
trial because an order had been previously entered staying the proceedings until the
conclusion of Vaughn's pending criminal trial. Vaughn was awaiting trial after having
been indicted for shooting Glasshoff during one of their confrontations in 2014. This
proceeding commenced when Glasshoff filed suit against Vaughn for damages in 2015.
Vaughn filed a counterclaim for various torts in January of 2016. The case was set and
passed by the agreement of the parties several times due to the pending criminal case. In
September of 2016, counsel for Glasshoff filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which
was set for hearing on October 21, 2016. The motion to withdraw stated that the
proceedings had been stayed due to the pendency of the criminal case and did not
identify any pending settings or deadlines of the trial or discovery due to the stay.
Glasshoff v. Vaughn Page 2
On October 6, 2016, a setting notice was issued by the trial court that indicated that
the motion to withdraw was set for October 21, 2016, and also included settings for a
docket call and a jury trial in November of 2016. The trial court conducted a hearing on
the motion to withdraw, granted the motion, and entered an order granting the motion
to withdraw on October 21, 2016. Counsel for Vaughn was present at that hearing as was
Glasshoff. The order granting the motion to withdraw contained a stay of the
proceedings, stating in relevant part: "The current deadlines and settings are stayed due
to Defendant's pending criminal matter." No further setting notices were issued and no
further orders were rendered by the trial court prior to November 26, 2016, which was
the jury trial date according to the October 6 notice.
On November 26, 2016, Vaughn and his counsel appeared but Glasshoff did not
appear even though the record indicates that he had been in contact with someone from
the trial court's office the day before the setting. Counsel for Vaughn made a motion to
withdraw his jury demand and for the trial court to grant a default judgment against
Glasshoff and in favor of Vaughn. Vaughn and Vaughn's wife testified and the trial court
was about to render a verdict when Glasshoff arrived, over an hour after the scheduled
start time. Glasshoff challenged the trial court's actions because of the stay that he
contended was in effect. Counsel for Vaughn denied that a stay was in effect. The trial
court found the language granting the stay in the order granting the motion to withdraw.
Counsel for Vaughn argued that the inclusion was a clerical error and that the stay should
Glasshoff v. Vaughn Page 3
not have been in the order. The trial court agreed with counsel for Vaughn but did recess
the trial to give Glasshoff time to hire counsel. Glasshoff asked the trial court to continue
the trial until after the criminal case, which was denied. Continuation of the trial was set
for January 6, 2017. Glasshoff was unable to retain counsel in the middle of trial and
proceeded pro se on January 6, and ultimately the trial court granted all of Vaughn's
requested relief and denied all of Glasshoff's claims.
Glasshoff complains that the trial of the civil proceedings was erroneous because
of the stay that had been ordered by the trial court. A trial court has the inherent power
to control the disposition of cases "with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants." Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam).
However, while the trial court has broad discretion in handling the cases that come before
it, that discretion is not unfettered. Porras v. Jefferson, 409 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). While the trial court was not required to stay the
proceedings due to the pending criminal case, the trial court did in fact sign an order that
granted such a stay. Once the stay order was rendered, Glasshoff was entitled to rely on
that order of the trial court in the absence of a notice of reinstatement, a subsequent
setting notice being issued by the trial court, or some other form of proper notice being
provided of a trial after the entry of the stay order on October 21. The setting in January
of 2017 was not a new setting, but was a continuation of the prior trial. The record
establishes that the trial court considered the evidence presented by Vaughn and his wife
Glasshoff v. Vaughn Page 4
from the day of trial in November in its judgment, and Vaughn relies on that evidence in
his brief to this Court in this appeal.
We find that the trial court's proceedings had been stayed by the quoted language
contained within the order granting the motion to withdraw as counsel. Because of this,
Glasshoff was entitled to notice issued after the order of October 21 that the trial court
intended to proceed to trial. No notice was given. The trial court should not have
commenced the trial due to the stay previously ordered which remained in force.
Therefore, we sustain Glasshoff's first issue, and reverse the judgment of the trial court
in its entirety. Because we have sustained Glasshoff's first issue, it is not necessary to
address Glasshoff's other issues that all stem from alleged errors that occurred during the
improperly-held trial.
CONCLUSION
Having found that the trial court erred by conducting the trial in violation of the
stay order, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this proceeding for a
new trial.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Reversed and remanded
Opinion delivered and filed December 12, 2018
[CV06]
Glasshoff v. Vaughn Page 5