Suttles v. Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc.

In this appeal and petition for writ of mandamus, appellants seek relief from the trial court's entry of a turnover order appointing a receiver and master in chancery. The trial court abused its discretion because the record contains no evidence showing the requirements for a turnover order or the appointment of a master exist. The trial court's turnover order is reversed and remanded to the trial court. The petition for writ of mandamus concerning the appointment of the master is conditionally granted. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, Nos. 01-09-01023-CV & 01-10-00071-CV, 04-22-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Original Proceedings on Petitions for Writ of Mandamus

OPINION

In this appeal and petition for writ of mandamus,*fn1 appellants and relators, Tracy and Cynthia Suttles seek relief from the trial court’s entry of a turnover order appointing a receiver and master in chancery. Appellees and real parties in interest, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc., Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc., and Vestin Fund III, LLC (collectively “Vestin”), sought to enforce a judgment against the Suttles and two other judgment debtors.*fn2 The trial court entered a turnover order appointing a receiver and master in chancery. In their appeal, the Suttles contend the trial court erred by entering the turnover order appointing a receiver because Vestin presented no evidence of the facts required by the turnover statute*fn3 and the turnover order was sought for a purpose not authorized by the statute. The Suttles also challenge the appointment of the receiver on the grounds that the trial court gave the receiver power not authorized by statute; created a conflict of interest by appointing the same person as master and receiver; and ordered compensation for the receiver before any work had been done. In their petition for writ of mandamus, the Suttles contend the trial court erred by appointing a master because the case does not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 171, the master’s powers to redirect and open the Suttles’ mail violates federal postal law, and the same person is appointed both the master and receiver. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because the record contains no evidence showing the requirements for a turnover order or the appointment of a master exist. We reverse the trial court’s turnover order and remand to the trial court. We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus concerning the appointment of the master.

Suttles v. Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New Jersey Law Journal