Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC v. Morgan, 03-23-00245-CV, March 20, 2026.
On appeal from the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Synopsis
A trial court’s judgment and subsequent turnover orders are void ab initio if signed after the expiration of its plenary jurisdiction, rendering any subsequent property sales legally precarious. While certain actors may attempt to cloak themselves in derived judicial immunity, actions taken under a void judgment remain subject to challenge, and parties who receive property or proceeds under such orders may be required to provide restitution once the judgment is vacated.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this case serves as a stark reminder of the jurisdictional limits surrounding post-divorce enforcement and the appointment of receivers. In property division disputes, we frequently rely on turnover orders and receiverships to liquidate marital assets or satisfy money judgments (such as attorney’s fees or equalization payments). If the order appointing the receiver or the underlying judgment is signed after the court’s plenary power has expired—and does not qualify as a valid clarifying order under Texas Family Code § 9.008—the entire enforcement apparatus, including the sale of the marital residence, is void. This opinion highlights the professional and financial risks to clients and counsel when property is moved under the authority of a legally dead court.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Stacey Hammer was the sole member of Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC, which owned a residential investment property. Following a series of lawsuits involving the foreclosure of her former marital residence, a trial court entered a sanctions judgment against Hammer in favor of Wayne Morgan. However, the trial court signed this sanctions judgment in January 2016, roughly one month after its plenary jurisdiction over the underlying suit had expired in December 2015.
Unaware of the jurisdictional defect, the trial court proceeded to sign turnover orders and appointed J. Patrick Sutton as a receiver to seize and sell the Jesse Owens property to satisfy the void sanctions judgment. Despite Hammer’s protestations regarding the LLC’s ownership and the validity of the orders, the receiver sold the real property and the personal property within it to third parties. After the Austin Court of Appeals eventually declared the sanctions judgment and turnover orders void, Hammer and the LLC brought suit against the judgment creditor, his attorney, the receiver, and the real estate professionals involved, seeking damages for the loss of the property. The trial court dismissed all claims, leading to this second appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether a trial court retains the power to issue sanctions and turnover orders after its plenary jurisdiction has expired.
- Whether a receiver and their agents are immune from liability when acting under a void order.
- Whether a party who obtains property under a void judgment is required to make restitution when that judgment is vacated.
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b: Governs the timeline of a trial court’s plenary power, typically expiring 30 days after a final judgment is signed unless a qualifying post-judgment motion is filed.
- Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002 (The Turnover Statute): Provides the mechanism for reaching assets to satisfy a judgment, but requires a valid, subsisting judgment as a predicate.
- Void vs. Voidable: A judgment is void when the court rendering it had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.
- Derived Judicial Immunity: Protects officers of the court (like receivers) who are acting as an “arm of the court,” but this immunity is contingent upon the court having the jurisdictional power to issue the underlying order.
Application
The Third Court of Appeals engaged in a rigorous jurisdictional audit. It confirmed that the underlying “UFCU Judgment” became final in August 2015, and because no motion for new trial was filed, the court’s plenary power evaporated in December 2015. Consequently, the January 2016 sanctions judgment—and the subsequent June 2016 turnover order—were not merely erroneous, but void.
The court then addressed the liability of the appellees. It noted that while a receiver generally enjoys derived judicial immunity, such immunity does not automatically shield every action taken when the appointing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. More importantly, the court applied the long-standing rule that a party who takes a benefit under a judgment that is later reversed or vacated must restore those benefits to the opposing party. The court found that because the sanctions and turnover orders were void, Hammer and Raggio stated viable claims for the return of the value of the property sold. The court distinguished between the “Real Estate Parties” (who were mere service providers) and the judgment creditor and receiver who actively facilitated the sale under void authority.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s sanctions judgment and all subsequent turnover orders were void because they were signed after the expiration of plenary power. Regarding the subsequent tort claims, the court:
1. Affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Real Estate Parties (brokers and title company), finding they lacked the requisite intent for conversion or trespass as they were merely executing a facially valid (though legally void) order.
2. Reversed and Remanded the claims against the judgment creditor (Morgan), his attorney (Gottfried), and the receiver (Sutton). The court held that because the orders were void ab initio, the plaintiffs were entitled to seek restitution for the property and proceeds lost.
Practical Application
- The Plenary Power Trap: Never assume a “Final Judgment” header or a “Finality Phrase” creates jurisdiction. Always count the days from the date the judge’s pen hit the paper on the first final order.
- Receivership Due Diligence: If you are representing a receiver or a party seeking one, you must ensure the underlying judgment is not only final but that the court still has the power to enforce it via turnover.
- Restitution Risk: If your client receives funds from a receiver’s sale and the underlying order is later found to be void, your client is on the hook for restitution. Do not distribute those funds if there is a pending jurisdictional challenge.
Checklists
Jurisdictional Audit for Enforcement
- Identify the exact date the Final Decree or Judgment was signed.
- Determine if a Motion for New Trial or Request for Findings of Fact was filed to extend plenary power.
- Verify if the enforcement order is a “Clarifying Order” under Fam. Code § 9.008 (which has different jurisdictional rules) or a substantive turnover/sanctions order.
- Confirm that the court’s plenary power had not expired before the turnover order was signed.
Vetting a Receiver’s Authority
- Confirm the receiver is bonded and the bond is filed.
- Ensure the property description in the turnover order matches the deed exactly.
- Verify that the entity owning the property (e.g., an LLC) is actually a party to the suit or that the “alter ego” has been properly adjudicated.
- Check for any pending appeals or supersedeas bonds that might stay the receiver’s power.
Citation
Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC and Stacey R. Hammer v. Wayne Morgan; David M. Gottfried; J. Patrick Sutton; Stewart Title of Austin, LLC; Bockholt Realty, LLC; Brent Bockholt; and Susan Bockholt, No. 03-23-00245-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 20, 2024, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a powerful weapon for a spouse whose separate property—or interest in an LLC—was wrongfully swept into a post-divorce receivership. If a trial court appoints a receiver to sell a business or home after its 30-day plenary window has closed, the sale is a legal nullity. This case allows a practitioner to sue for the return of assets or their value even after the “sale” has closed. Furthermore, it clarifies that “Derived Judicial Immunity” is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for receivers who act under void orders. In high-conflict property cases, this creates a path to sue for conversion and trespass when a receiver oversteps or when the judgment creditor pushes for enforcement in a court that no longer has the power to act.
~~4469fcdc-5625-4281-8caf-dd7128faa48e~~
Share this content: