In re Byrom, 316 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). ).
Creditor presented Independent Executor with unsecured claims based
on previous probate court orders stating that the claims were to be paid
from estate funds within thirty days. When Creditor presented these
claims, the thirty days had already elapsed. Executor rejected both
claims. Two years later, Creditor filed suit to remove Executor. The
trial court removed Executor from office but did not discharge him. The
court also ordered Executor pay Creditor’s attorney fees and expenses
within thirty days and to deposit estate property into the registry of
the court. Executor did not comply with these orders and thus Creditor
field a motion to enforce the orders by contempt. After hearing
evidence, the court remanded Executor to jail unless he made the
required payments. Because Executor did not comply, he was confined to
jail. After posting bond, he was, however, released from jail. He filed
for writ of habeas corpus which was denied and he was again taken to
jail. Executor filed for a writ of mandamus.
The appellate court explained that a person who willfully disobeys a
valid court order is guilty of contempt and that imprisonment is
normally appropriate. However, Texas Constitution Article I, § 18,
prohibits a person from being imprisoned for a debt. After a lengthy
analysis of contempt law, the court concludes that Executor was held in
contempt for failing to deposit funds which would be used to pay debts
and thus the contempt order was unconstitutional. Thus, the court
granted Executor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Moral: The ability to have a misbehaving executor imprisoned for
violating court orders is limited because of the constitutional
prohibition against debtor imprisonment.