Rosser v. Squier

Texas Supreme Court

Rosser v. Squier

902 S.W.2d 962, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 988, 1995 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1995 WL 385511

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1995

Docket95-0370

StatusPublished

Cited by105 cases

This text of 902 S.W.2d 962 (Rosser v. Squier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 988, 1995 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1995 WL 385511 (Tex. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Jean Rosser filed a contempt motion against her former husband, Thomas Johnson Rosser, alleging six counts of contempt. After notice and hearing, the trial court convicted Thomas of all six counts of contempt, and assessed no confinement, but as punishment assessed a fine of $45,000.00 payable to a third party. Thomas seeks mandamus relief against this order and related orders.

Habeas corpus relief is not available because there is no physical restraint. Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.1985). To the extent that Thomas seeks mandamus relief from a fine assessed under a contempt order because the excessive amount of the fine was void, this court will entertain mandamus jurisdiction. Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824 (1960); see also Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, orig. proceeding). Under Tex. Gov’t Code § 21.002(b), the trial court lacks jurisdiction to assess a fine of more than $500 for each contempt. Ex parte Carey, 704 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.1967). The fine beyond the maximum is void. For six counts, the maximum fine is $3,000.00.

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus directing Judge Squier to reduce the fine to $3,000 payable to the court, because his contempt judgment conflicts with Tex.Gov’t Code § 21.002(b), Ex parte Carey, and Ex parte Campbell. Tex.R.App.P. 122. All relief not expressly granted is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Jean Rosser filed a contempt motion against her former husband, Thomas Johnson Rosser, alleging six counts of contempt. After notice and hearing, the trial court convicted Thomas of all six counts of contempt, and assessed no confinement, but as punishment assessed a fine of $45,000.00 payable to a third party. Thomas seeks mandamus relief against this order and related orders.

Habeas corpus relief is not available because there is no physical restraint. Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.1985). To the extent that Thomas seeks mandamus relief from a fine assessed under a contempt order because the excessive amount of the fine was void, this court will entertain mandamus jurisdiction. Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824 (1960); see also Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, orig. proceeding). Under Tex. Gov’t Code § 21.002(b), the trial court lacks jurisdiction to assess a fine of more than $500 for each contempt. Ex parte Carey, 704 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.1967). The fine beyond the maximum is void. For six counts, the maximum fine is $3,000.00.

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus directing Judge Squier to reduce the fine to $3,000 payable to the court, because his contempt judgment conflicts with Tex.Gov’t Code § 21.002(b), Ex parte Carey, and Ex parte Campbell. Tex.R.App.P. 122. All relief not expressly granted is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

902 S.W.2d 962, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 988, 1995 Tex. LEXIS 113, 1995 WL 385511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosser-v-squier-tex-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack