Summary Calendar FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. Steve Morriss

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-40992
Summary Calendar
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Plaintiff
v.
STEVE MORRISS
Defendant - Appellee
v.
TARECO PROPERTIES, INC, Garnishor
Movant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-MC-24
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tareco Properties, Inc. petitioned the district court to order Steve Morriss
to turn over assets and properties for the satisfaction of an earlier judgment.
Tareco now appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for turnover with
respect to some of these properties and assets. Tareco also appeals the district
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 11, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

2
court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to “prevent Steve Morriss from
transferring such property or selling it and dissipating the proceeds.” We affirm.
Tareco motioned for turnover under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code Section 31.002, commonly referred to as the Texas Turnover Statute. This
statute is a procedural mechanism by which judgment creditors can reach assets
of a judgment debtor that are otherwise difficult to attach or levy on by ordinary
legal process. See Maiz v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 2002); Beaumont
Bank v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. 1991).
We review a district court’s turnover judgment for abuse of discretion.
Bolloré S.A. v. Import Warehouse, Inc., 448 F.3d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 2006). A
court abuses its discretion when it acts “in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner
. . . without reference to any guiding rules and principles.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on the available evidence, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tareco’s motion for
turnover. Due in part to our conclusion that the district court properly denied
Tareco’s turnover motion, we also hold that the court did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to issue the injunction. See Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs.
Baird’s Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he abuse of discretion
standard is utilized in our review of the district court's refusal to issue an
injunction.”).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --