Weyend v. Hubman Foundation the et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that Interveners Application for Writ of Scire Facias to Renew Judgment (Dkt. 88 ) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/14/2017. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
RICHARD W WEYEND
Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-00343
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Annie Chapman and the Chapman Group II, LLC’s
Application for Writ of Scire Facias to Renew Judgment (Dkt. #88). Having considered the
motion, the Court finds the motion should be denied at this time.
On February 27, 2009, the Court entered judgment against Defendants Tim Hubman and
the Hubman Foundation (Dkt. #87). To date, Defendants have not satisfied the judgment. On
March 13, 2017, Annie Chapman and The Chapman Group II, LLC (“Interveners”), filed an
Application for Writ of Scire Facias. Defendants did not file a response.
In the motion, Interveners ask the Court to (1) enter judgment and (2) renew judgment.
The Court has already entered judgment in this case (Dkt. #87). However, the Court has not
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) provides that the procedure on execution of a
judgment must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.
F. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Under Texas law, a dormant judgment is a judgment that is unsatisfied but not
extinguished by lapse of time. In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 895 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014,
no pet. h.). However, because the judgment has gone unexecuted for such a time, it must be
revived before it can be executed. Id.
In order to prevent a judgment from becoming dormant, a writ of execution must issue
within 10 years after the rendition of the judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 34.001(a). A timely issued writ of execution extends the date the judgment becomes dormant to
10 years from the date of the execution of the writ. See id. § 34.001(b). Thus, a judgment creditor
may renew the judgment “indefinitely by having a writ of execution issued within ten years of the
previous writ.” Cadle Co. v. Fahoum, No. 2-06-459-CV, 2008 WL 754992, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth Mar. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op).
Once the judgment is dormant, it may be revived by scire facias brought before the second
anniversary of the dormant date. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 34.001(b). In determining
whether to issue a writ of scire facias, the trial court considers the date of the underlying judgment,
evidence of any writs of execution issued on the judgment, and the date of the motion to revive
the judgment scire facias. Calde Co. v. Rollins, No. 01–09–00165–CV, 2010 WL 670561, at *2
(Tex. App.—Dallas July 6, 2001, no pet.) (mem. op.). If scire facies is issued in the two-year
window, the trial court is without discretion and must revive the judgment. Stedman v. Paz,
511 S.W.3d 635, 637 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet h.).
Here, the date of the underlying judgment is February 27, 2009. Nothing in the record
indicates that the Interveners ever filed for a writ of execution. Thus, the judgment becomes
dormant on February 27, 2019. Because the judgment is not yet dormant, there is no judgment to
“revive” via scire facias. See Sobranes Recovery Pool I, LLC v. Todd & Hughes Const. Corp.,
509 F.3d 216, 227 n. 39 (5th Cir. 2007). Interveners’ must seek enforcement of the judgment via
writ of execution. Execution is a method of enforcing a judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 621; In re
Andrews, 239 F.3d 708, 711 (5th Cir. 2001). To initiate an execution, a judgment creditor must
obtain from a court a writ of execution that meets certain requirements and deliver it to a sheriff
or constable. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 622, 629.
It is therefore ORDERED that Interveners Application for Writ of Scire Facias to Renew
Judgment (Dkt. #88) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SIGNED this 14th day of July, 2017.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?