Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
DAVID N. CALVILLO, Appellant,
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES GUERRA, Appellee.
appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County,
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
L. LONGORIA Justice
David N. Calvillo appeals an order that: (1) denied his
motion to amend the trial court's judgment; (2) denied
his post-judgment application for the appointment of a
receiver and for turnover relief; and (3) granted appellee
Maria De Los Angeles Guerra's ("Maria") motion
to retax costs. We affirm.
A. The Domit Divorce Case
Domit ("Antun"), a McAllen-area property developer,
filed for divorce from Maria in the 370th District Court of
Hidalgo County in 2006. During the course of the case, Maria
asked the trial court to appoint a receiver to take charge of
the parties' numerous properties and business entities.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.502(a)(5) (West,
Westlaw through Ch. 49, 2017 R.S.). The trial court granted
the motion and appointed appellant as the receiver on
November 18, 2008.
August 26, 2009, the trial court entered an agreed order
regarding the receiver's compensation. The order directed
appellant to "prepare periodic statements of services
rendered and time and expenses expended during the course of
the receivership. Those periodic statements shall NOT be
filed with the Court but will be made available to the
parties in the litigation." If none of the parties
objected within ten days of receipt, appellant "was
authorized to pay the invoice." It is unclear how many
invoices were submitted or approved through this process but,
on June 7, 2013, appellant submitted an invoice to the
parties for $289, 112.46 for fees incurred since November 30,
2012. Neither party objected within ten days of receipt, but
appellant apparently did not pay the invoice to himself.
trial court signed a final decree of divorce in December
2013. The decree expressly discharged appellant as receiver,
terminated the receivership, and provided that "[t]he
costs of the receivership are to be borne 75% by Petitioner
Antun and 25% by Respondent [Maria], " but did not award
a specific amount of fees.
thereafter timely filed his "Amended Motion for Entry of
Supplemental Judgment or Alternatively, Motion to Amend
Judgment, and Motion for Issuance of Post Judgment
Writs." Appellant informed the trial court in this
motion that he was owed the $289, 112.46 in fees from his
invoice of June 7, 2013 and that he had incurred additional
fees after that date which he had not billed. In addition,
appellant informed the trial court that he had hired the law
firm of Cox and Smith to represent the marital estate's
interests in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding at the cost
of $145, 000 in attorneys' fees. According to
appellant's motion, the total of the fees incurred by him
and Cox and Smith was $432, 112.46. Appellant requested in his
motion that the trial court either amend the decree of
divorce "to provide for a judgment in favor of Receiver
for the full amount of $432, 112.46 as against the parties
and the business entities subject to the Receivership"
or enter a supplemental judgment to that effect. The trial
court took no action on appellant's motion.
appealed the decree of divorce to this Court, but appellant
did not file his own notice of appeal. Cf. Wiley v.
Sclafani, 943 S.W.2d 107, 110 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st
Dist.] 1997, no writ) (holding that a receiver had standing
to appeal the trial court's award of his fees in a final
Antun's appeal was pending in this Court, appellant
submitted his fees to the district clerk. The fee amounts in
his submission were slightly higher than in his motion to the
trial court: the same $289, 112.46 in fees for appellant but
$160, 959.94 in attorneys' fees for Cox and Smith. After
subtracting a $2, 231 credit, the total amount of fees was
$450, 072.40. The district clerk included these fee amounts
in the bill of costs as receivership fees and prepared a
Civil Fee Docket and Fee Book including these figures.
Court subsequently rejected Antun's appeal and affirmed
the decree of divorce. Domit v. Domit, No.
13-14-00001-CV, 2014 WL 5500475, at *1 (Tex. App.- Corpus
Christi Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).