Cantu v. Butron

In Cantu v. Butron, 905 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied), the trial court dissolved a writ of garnishment based upon a judgment debtor filing a supersedeas bond in an underlying litigation after the garnishee bank had filed an answer in the garnishment proceeding, and the issue on appeal concerned the payment of fees arising from the garnishment proceeding. See id. The judgment debtor contended on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering the judgment debtor to pay the garnishee bank's attorney's fees because the garnishor was the party that filed the motion to dissolve. Id. Citing rule 677 of the rules of civil procedure, the Court concluded that the bank was not discharged on its answer but on "these intervening events" the supersedeas bond and, in that situation, it was within the trial court's discretion to determine which party should bear the garnishee's expenses upon dissolution of the writ. See id.; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 677.