Gary Wayne Inmon v. Christine Ann DeArmond

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: 03-24-00153-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00153-CV

Gary Wayne Inmon, Appellant

v.

Christine Ann DeArmond, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2020-0052B THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Gary Wayne Inmon filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal three

trial-court orders: (1) Order of Enforcement by Contempt and Suspension of Commitment dated

February 15, 2024 (“Contempt Order”); (2) Order for Forfeiture of Bond dated February 15,

2024 (“Bond-Forfeiture Order”); and (3) Order dated February 15, 2024 (“Additional Attorneys’

Fees Order”). After Inmon filed his notice of appeal, this Court granted his emergency motion

requesting that we stay the trial court’s Bond-Forfeiture Order and temporarily stayed the

Bond-Forfeiture Order, pending further order of this Court; we also requested a response from

appellee Christine Ann DeArmond.

Subsequently, in an original proceeding filed separately, Docket No. 03-24-

00175-CV, In re Gary Inmon, Inmon filed a petition for habeas corpus, and on rehearing, an amended petition for habeas corpus, both of which sought to stay the trial court’s enforcement of

the Contempt Order.1 In connection with Inmon’s habeas petitions, this Court temporarily

stayed the Contempt Order, which had ordered Inmon to surrender himself to the Comal County

Sheriff on March 17, 2024. The Court later denied his petition and lifted its stay of the Contempt

Order. Inmon then filed in this appeal an opposed motion for emergency stay of the Contempt

Order’s enforcement “based upon the temporary stay being lifted by [this] Court,” which the

Court denied.

In our October 28, 2024 order denying Inmon’s motion to stay the Contempt

Order, we informed him that upon review of the now-complete appellate record, it appears that

none of the orders identified in the notice of appeal appear to be appealable orders. This Court

lacks jurisdiction over appeals from contempt judgments. See Cadle Co. v. Lobingier,

50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (“A contempt judgment is

reviewable only via a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a

petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved).”). Decisions in contempt

proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal because contempt orders are not appealable, even

when appealed along with a judgment that is appealable. Id. Both the Bond-Forfeiture Order

and the Additional Attorneys’ Fees Order are ancillary to the Contempt Order and are not

independently appealable orders. For that reason, we lifted our stay of the Bond-Forfeiture

Order in our October 28, 2024 order.

1 Inmon subsequently filed two more habeas petitions, Docket No. 03-24-00714-CV, and Docket No. 03-24-00753-CV. The Court denied his petition in Docket No. 03-24-00714-CV on November 13, 2024. The Court denied Inmon’s petition in Docket No. 03-24-00753-CV on November 22, 2024.

2 We also requested that Inmon file a response on or before November 7, 2024,

explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. To date, no response has

been filed. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 22, 2024