Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2015-50593
consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise.
appeal from the dismissal of a bill of review in a
post-judgment turnover and receivership proceeding,
appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing
their bill of review for want of subject matter jurisdiction
based on the appellants' pending appeal in this court.
Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in
dismissing the appellant corporation for lack of standing
based on the corporation's forfeiture of its charter. We
affirm on the first issue and do not reach the second.
Factual and Procedural Background
case has a lengthy procedural history which is described in
detail in this court's opinion in the underlying
consolidated appeal and petition for mandamus in Mitchell
v. Turbine Resources Unlimited, Inc., 523 S.W.3d 189
(Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied)
(Mitchell I). We recount the relevant facts from the
opinion to place the appellants' arguments in context.
The Underlying Receivership Proceeding and
2006, Turbine Resources Unlimited, Inc. (Turbine) obtained a
judgment in its favor against International A, Inc. and Tom
George. Id. at 191. To aid in executing the
judgment, the trial court appointed Riecke Baumann as master
and receiver to take possession of all non-exempt property in
any defendant's actual or constructive possession, and to
order all defendants and third parties to produce and turn
over assets, evidence, and documents pertaining to compliance
with the trial court's order. Id. at 191-92.
November 2013 and September 2014, Baumann filed two
master's reports, which the trial court adopted in orders
signed January 2, 2014, and September 24, 2014. See
id. at 192-94. In the order of September 24, 2014, the
trial court authorized the sale of certain property
"subject to third parties' rights."
Id. at 194. During this time, appellant Jennifer
Mitchell was not a party to the receivership proceeding.
Id. In October 2014, however, Mitchell filed
several motions as an "interested third party" to
protect alleged interests in property subject to the
receivership and to attack several of Baumann's findings
in the first and second master's reports. Id. at
January 2015, Baumann filed a third master's report.
Id. Mitchell filed additional motions challenging
all three master's reports, as well as a fourth motion to
modify the trial court's orders. Id. at 194-95.
The trial court signed an order acknowledging receipt of the
third master's report, but the court did not adopt its
findings. Id. at 194.
March 2015, Mitchell and appellant TCSM, LLC (collectively,
the Mitchell Parties) filed a plea in intervention claiming
that Baumann wrongfully had taken possession of the Mitchell
Parties' property in his attempt to satisfy the judgment
against George and International A. Id. at 195.
Additional motions and objections followed, in which the
Mitchell Parties argued that Baumann unlawfully had
confiscated assets based on findings made without the benefit
of a separate judicial process, and had exceeded the scope of
his authority by including in the receivership property that
George did not own. Id.
than treat the findings in the first two master's reports
as conclusive, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in
which Mitchell provided testimony about each of the disputed
findings. Id. at 195, 201. On April 14, 2015, the
trial court denied Mitchell's fourth motion to modify the
court's orders. Id. at 195. On June 2, 2015, the
trial court signed an order approving the sale of assets the
Mitchell Parties contended were owned by TCSM. Id.
The Mitchell Parties appealed to this court, challenging the
trial court's April 14, 2015 order denying Mitchell's
motion to modify and the June 2, 2015 order approving the
sale of assets. See id.
perfecting their appeal, the Mitchell Parties filed in the
trial court a motion to set aside the first and second
master's reports as void. Id. The trial court
denied the motion. Id. The Mitchell Parties
subsequently filed in this court a petition for mandamus
alleging that the trial court's January 2, 2014 and
September 5, 2014 orders adopting the first and second
master's reports were void and therefore the trial court
erred in refusing to set aside the master's reports.
Id. at 195, 202. This court consolidated the
Mitchell Parties' appeal and mandamus proceedings.
See id. at 191.
March 30, 2017, this court overruled the Mitchell
Parties' appeal, affirming the trial court's orders
of April 14 and June 2, 2015. Id. at 203. This court
also denied the Mitchell Parties' petition for mandamus,
holding that the trial court's orders ...