Partain v. Maples

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Farmers Ins. Exch. & Tex. Farmers Ins. Co.

    NUMBER 13-14-00330-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Granting mandamus with respect to turnover order that was void because trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by purporting to determine insurance coverage issue in such order

    However, the turnover statute may not be used to determine substantive rights. See Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 71 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.); D & M Marine, Inc. v. Turner, 409 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.); Cross, Kieschnick & Co. v. Johnston, 892 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ); see also In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 13-14-00231-CV, 2014 WL 4795923, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 25, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Although the turnover statute is generally not applied to parties who are not judgment debtors, Beaumont Bank, 806 S.W.2d at 227, "under certain circumstances an action under the turnover statute may be brought against parties other than the judgment debtor in order to assist the judgment creditor in subjecting the judgment debtor's non-exempt property to satisfaction of the underlying judgment."

  2. Partain v. Gabert

    No. 13-21-00037-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    In his first amended petition, Partain complained about the Fifth Administrative District's assignment of Judge Gabert to one of the civil cases he filed against Maples in 2011. In that case, Judge Gabert rendered a judgment against Partain-an order this court later vacated on appeal in Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2013, no pet.). See Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2013, no pet.); see also Partain v. Maples, No. 13-11-00289-CV, 2012 WL 29258 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Jan. 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Maples v. Partain, No. 13-05-318-CV, 2005 WL 3216645 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Dec. 1, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  3. Cloud Network Tech. U.S. v. RRK Trucking Inc.

    Civil Action 1:23-CV-00028-H-BU (N.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2024)

    Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 71 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2013, no writ).

  4. SGG, LLC v. Porche

    NO. 14-18-00473-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 2, 2020)

    As a result, we conclude that they have not shown the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Porche's claims. See Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 73 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.) (holding judgment debtor could not use turnover order issued outside trial court's plenary power to obtain reimbursement for overpayment of underlying judgment but was instead "required to seek reimbursement for the overpayment on the judgment in a separate suit."); Woody K. Lesikar Special Trust v. Moon, No. 14-10-00119-CV, 2011 WL 3447491, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 9, 2011, pet. denied) (stating that merits of a reimbursement claim are not the proper subject of a turnover proceeding). The caselaw appellants cite does not change this result.

  5. Partain v. State

    NUMBER 13-16-00080-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 20, 2017)

    See, e.g., In re Partain, No. 13-16-00516-CV, 2016 WL 5846549, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.); Partain v. Guerra, No. 13-13-00341-CV, 2015 WL 4116727, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); Partain v. Estate of Maples, No. 13-14-00584-CV, 2015 WL 5092167, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 25, 2015, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (mem. op.); Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 70 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.); Partain v. Maples, No. 13-11-00289-CV, 2012 WL 29258, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 5, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.); In re Maples, No. 13-08-00524-CV, 2008 WL 4515808, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 8, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.

  6. In re Partain

    NUMBER 13-16-00516-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    See Partain v. Guerra, No. 131300341CV, 2015 WL 4116727, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.), and is connected to numerous other legal proceedings. See, e.g., Partain v. Isgur, 390 Fed. Appx. 326, 327 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); In re Maples, 529 F.3d 670, 671 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Partain v. Estate of Maples, No. 131400584CV, 2015 WL 5092167, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 25, 2015, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (mem. op.); Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 70 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.); In re Maples, No. 130800524CV, 2008 WL 4515808, at *1 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi Oct. 8, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.

  7. Partain v. Constable J. E. Eddie' Guerra

    NUMBER 13-13-00341-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 2, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The record indeed reflects that on May 9, 2013, this court ruled that the judgment in question from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County was not valid and the county trial court was without jurisdiction. Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d. 69, 73-74 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2013, no pet.). In our earlier opinion, we noted the history going back to January 1998 when Partain sued Maples, obtained a jury verdict, and a sizeable judgment was entered on February 24, 2002.

  8. Partain v. Estate of Maples

    NUMBER 13-14-00584-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 25, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The litigation between appellant and Maples involved title to a condominium located at North Seventh Court in McAllen, Texas ("the Property"), among other matters. See, e.g., Partain v. Isgur, 390 Fed. Appx. 326, 327 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); In re Maples, 529 F.3d 670, 671 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Partain v. Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 70 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.); In re Maples, No. 13-08-00524-CV, 2008 WL 4515808, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 8, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.

  9. In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    NUMBER 13-14-00231-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 25, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    First, as a purely procedural device, the turnover statute may not be used to determine substantive rights. See Partain v. Maples, No. 13-12-00267-CV, 2013 WL 1914933, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 9, 2013, no pet.); D & M Marine, Inc. v. Turner, 409 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.); Cross, Kieschnick & Co. v. Johnston, 892 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ); Republic Ins. Co., 825 S.W.2d at 783; Cravens, Dargan & Co. v. PeytonL. Travers Co., 770 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied); see also Woody K. Lesikar Special Trust v. Moon, No. 14-10-00119-CV, 2011 WL 3447491, at **5-7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 9, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Second, the turnover statute may not be used to determine the property rights of third parties.