Opinion
No. 10-04-00286-CV
Opinion delivered and filed October 13, 2004.
Original Proceeding.
Writ denied.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
(Justice VANCE concurring with note)
"(Justice Vance concurs in denying the petition, but on different grounds. The majority's opinion in the divorce appeal essentially holds that the mediated settlement agreement had nothing to do with the divorce suit. ("There was no written agreement between the parties to mediate and there was no referral by the court based on a written agreement or on the court's own motion to mediation." Because this court has held that the agreement was free-standing, a holding with which I disagree, we cannot now interfere in a suit for its enforcement.)"
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mikle Gene Lee filed for divorce from Mary Lucile Lee. The parties had mediated a settlement agreement of their property division. The trial court did not accept the mediated agreement. After a jury trial, the trial court entered a decree of divorce. Lucy appealed, arguing that the trial court was required to enter a decree of divorce based on the settlement agreement. We issued an opinion affirming the trial court's judgment. We have not yet issued our mandate.
Not long after the trial court entered its divorce decree, Lucy filed suit in Bell County alleging Gene breached the mediated settlement agreement. Gene requests this Court to issue a writ of injunction prohibiting his former wife, Mary Lucile Lee, from prosecuting that lawsuit in Bell County or in any other trial court.
The courts of appeals have limited injunctive powers. "Each court of appeals . . . may issue . . . all . . . writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004). A court of appeals "has no original jurisdiction to grant writs of injunction, except to protect its jurisdiction over the subject matter of a pending appeal, or to prevent an unlawful interference with the enforcement of its judgments and decrees." Ott v. Bell, 606 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, no writ). An injunction will not lie in the courts of appeals merely to preserve the status quo pending appeal. EMW Mfg. Co. v. Lemons, 724 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding). Nor will injunction lie merely "to protect a party from damage pending appeal." Gibson v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist., 971 S.W.2d 199, 204 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998) (quoting Parsons v. Galveston County Employees Credit Union, 576 S.W.2d 99, 99 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ)), Gibson vacated on other grounds, 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction to issue the writ.
Gene contends that this suit is a collateral attack on our jurisdiction. He also contends that he will suffer irreparable harm unless the suit in Bell County is enjoined. But we have nothing more to do in the appeal other than issue a mandate. And an injunction will not issue merely to protect a party from damage pending an appeal.
Therefore, the petition is denied.