Brian Andrew Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Brian Andrew Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-05-00520-CR

Case Date: 03/07/2007

Plaintiff: Sunny Chae et al

Defendant: Kathryn Schneider--Appeal from 160th District Court of Dallas County

Preview:Sunny Chae et al v. Kathryn Schneider--Appeal from
160th District Court of Dallas County
Opinion filed October 11, 2007
Opinion filed October 11, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-05-00262-CV
SUNNY CHAE ET AL, Appellants
V.
KATHRYN SCHNEIDER, Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03-07957
O P I N I O N
The trial court entered judgment against Sunny Chae in the amount of $588,000 on December 14, 2004. Chae filed a
notice of restricted appeal on June 10, 2005. Kathryn Schneider subsequently filed a Asuggestion of bankruptcy@ on
November 10, 2005, that advised this court that Chae filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in California on October
16, 2005. We suspended the appeal on November 17, 2005, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.
Chae has now filed a motion entitled Amotion to vacate judgment and dismiss cause.@ She alleges in the motion that
the debt that is the subject of this appeal has been discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding.[1] She asks this court to
vacate the trial court=s judgment and dismiss the cause rather than merely dismissing the appeal. As set out below,
appellant=s requested relief is overruled. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Tex. R. App. P. 8 establishes the procedures to be followed when a bankruptcy proceeding is filed during the pendency
of an appeal. Rule 8.1 addresses the manner in which the parties are to advise the appellate court of the filing of the
bankruptcy. Rule 8.2 provides that the filing of the bankruptcy has the effect of suspending the appeal. Rule 8.3
addresses procedures for reinstating the appeal if the parties are permitted to do so under the applicable federal laws.
However, Rule 8 does not address the procedures to be followed by the litigants and the appellate court when the
debtor=s potential liability is discharged by bankruptcy court during the pendency of the appeal. See Schultz v. Barnes,
No. 07-04-00424-CV, 2006 WL 2051390 (Tex. App.CAmarillo July 24, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Citing 11 U.S.C. ' 524(a)(1), (2), the Supreme Court has held that a bankruptcy discharge order releases a debtor from
personal liability with respect to any discharged debt by voiding any past or future judgments on the debt and by
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8785.html[8/20/2013 7:29:57 PM]

operating as an injunction to prohibit creditors from attempting to collect or to recover the debt. Tenn. Student
Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 447 (2004). The application of Section 524 has been restricted to the debtor=s
personal liability. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83 (1991) (a discharge under Section 524(a)(1)
Aextinguishes only >the personal liability of the debtor=@). As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained,
Aa bankruptcy discharge eliminates only the debtor=s personal liability and not the debt itself.@ Stanley v. Trinchard,
Nos. 06-30120 & 06-30299, 2007 WL 2669828 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2007).
The court in Schultz addressed a situation similar to the one in this case. The court dismissed the appeal for want of
jurisdiction based upon its determination that any judgment it would render
that determined the debtor=s personal liability would be void under federal law. See Section 524(a)(1). In making this
determination, the court stated that the appeal was moot and that it had Ano jurisdiction to decide a moot
controversy.@ Schultz, 2006 WL 2051390, at *1 (citing Nat=l Collegiate Athletic Ass=n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86
(Tex. 1999)). We agree with Schultz. A case becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy
between the parties, and appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. Jones, 1 S.W.3d at 86; see
Camarena v. Tex. Employment Comm=n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988).
Irrespective of the issue of mootness, Tex. Prop. Code Ann. ' 52.042 (Vernon 2007) addresses the effect of a
bankruptcy discharge on a judgment. The statute provides that a judgment is discharged Awithout further action in any
court@ if the debt or obligation evidenced by the judgment is discharged in bankruptcy (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the statute provides the relief that Chae essentially seeks from this court. The statute specifically entitles
Chae to this relief without further action in any court. In light of the statute=s provisions, Chae=s request to vacate the
trial court judgment and dismiss the entire cause is overruled.
This Court=s Ruling
In light of the bankruptcy discharge, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
TERRY McCALL
JUSTICE
October 11, 2007
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]Schneider has not filed a response contesting Chae=s contention that the debt that is the subject of this appeal was
discharged by the bankruptcy court.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8785.html[8/20/2013 7:29:57 PM]

Download 8785.pdf