Haskett v. Pitchford, 01-25-00125-CV, September 15, 2026.
On appeal from 122nd District Court, Galveston County, Texas
Synopsis
A party cannot reverse a sanctions order on the ground that notice of the sanctions hearing was too short under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(b) unless that complaint was first made in the trial court. The First Court held that Rule 21(b) generally requires only three days’ notice of a hearing, and the failure to object to the notice period waives the issue under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1.
Relevance to Family Law
This holding matters in Texas family law because sanctions practice is routine in divorce, SAPCR, enforcement, and property-division litigation. Discovery disputes, motions to quash, post-judgment turnover proceedings, and fee-shifting requests often proceed on compressed settings. Haskett is a reminder that if counsel believes notice of a sanctions hearing is inadequate, the complaint must be raised in the trial court—promptly and clearly—or it will be lost on appeal. In practical terms, family lawyers handling emergency discovery disputes, pretrial motions, and post-decree enforcement should assume that a short-setting hearing may still satisfy Rule 21(b) unless a specific objection is preserved.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying case was a tax suit involving competing claims to excess sale proceeds after real property was sold to satisfy delinquent taxes. After final judgment, both Phillip Haskett and Lindsey Pitchford sought the excess funds in the registry of the court. The trial court entered a docket control order setting a hearing on Pitchford’s appeal from the tax master’s recommendation.
Against that backdrop, Haskett noticed depositions on his own initiative. He first noticed Pitchford’s deposition for December 26 after asking opposing counsel for dates. Pitchford moved to quash, and that deposition did not proceed. Haskett then noticed Judy Griffin’s deposition for Saturday, December 28. Pitchford again moved to quash, which stayed the deposition under Rule 199.4. Despite the stay, Haskett went forward with Griffin’s deposition anyway.
Pitchford then moved for sanctions based on the discovery conduct, seeking to exclude Griffin’s deposition and recover attorney’s fees. Counsel obtained a January 24, 2025 hearing setting on January 12, and served Haskett with notice on January 20. Haskett did not appear at the sanctions hearing. The trial court struck Griffin’s deposition testimony and awarded $700 in attorney’s fees as sanctions.
The appeal also challenged a turnover order entered after a receiver in related litigation intervened to collect any excess proceeds owed to Haskett. The First Court affirmed both the sanctions and turnover orders, but the aspect of the opinion with the clearest crossover value is its treatment of notice and preservation regarding the sanctions hearing.
Issues Decided
- Whether a complaint that notice of a sanctions hearing was too short under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(b) was preserved for appellate review when no objection was made in the trial court.
- Whether three days’ notice of a sanctions hearing satisfies Rule 21(b)’s general notice requirement.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions arising from the deposition dispute.
- Whether complaints about the lack of a reporter’s record at the sanctions hearing and the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law were preserved or adequately briefed.
- Whether the turnover order was erroneous because a motion to supersede in related litigation was pending.
Rules Applied
The court relied on several familiar procedural rules and preservation principles:
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(b): The rules generally require three days’ notice of a hearing.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1: To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the party must make a timely request, objection, or motion in the trial court and obtain a ruling or refusal to rule.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199.4: A motion to quash or for protection can stay an oral deposition.
- Abuse-of-discretion review for sanctions orders: The court cited Powell v. Fletcher, 695 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2024, pet. denied.).
- Burden to present a record showing reversible error: The court cited Campos v. Cweren Law Firm PLLC, No. 01-22-00718-CV, 2024 WL 971672, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 7, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
- Waiver through inadequate briefing: The court invoked Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i).
- Enforcement of unsuperseded judgments: On the turnover issue, the court cited In re Greystar Dev. & Constr., L.P., — S.W.3d —, No. 24-0293, 2026 WL 1445481, at *4 (Tex. May 22, 2026).
Application
The First Court treated the notice complaint as a straightforward preservation problem. Haskett argued on appeal that he received only three days’ notice of the sanctions hearing, even though opposing counsel had known of the setting earlier. The court did not view that argument as a basis for reversal because Rule 21(b) generally requires three days’ notice, and—more importantly—Haskett never objected in the trial court that the notice was too short.
That framing is significant. The court did not suggest that any short-setting sanctions hearing is immune from challenge. Rather, it reaffirmed that notice complaints are procedural complaints that must be preserved. If counsel believes the notice period deprives the client of a fair opportunity to respond, obtain evidence, secure attendance, or prepare for the hearing, that point must be presented to the trial court in real time. Without that objection, the appellate court will treat the issue as waived.
The rest of the sanctions analysis follows the same theme. Haskett argued he was operating within a compressed discovery period, but he had not objected to the schedule or sought additional time below. He argued the opposing claim lacked merit, but the court explained that sanctions for discovery abuse do not turn on which side ultimately wins on the merits. He argued no record was made of the hearing, but because he failed to appear and ensure a record existed, he could not convert that omission into reversible error on appeal. He also argued the court should have entered findings and conclusions, but he cited no authority supporting that point.
On the turnover issue, the court likewise focused on procedural reality rather than abstraction: because the related judgment had not actually been superseded, it remained enforceable, and the turnover order stood.
Holding
The court held that a complaint about insufficient notice of a sanctions hearing under Rule 21(b) is waived if the complaining party did not object in the trial court. The court further stated that Rule 21(b) generally requires three days’ notice of a hearing, so a party who receives that amount of notice cannot obtain reversal merely by arguing on appeal that the opposing party knew of the setting earlier.
The court also held that Haskett’s other sanctions complaints failed for independent preservation and briefing reasons. Complaints about the discovery window were waived because no objection or request for more time was made below. Complaints about the absence of a hearing record failed because the appellant did not appear and ensure a record was made. Complaints about findings and conclusions were waived through inadequate briefing.
Finally, the court held that the turnover order was proper because the related judgment had not been superseded. A pending but unsuccessful effort to supersede does not bar enforcement.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, Haskett is best read as a preservation case with sanctions-hearing implications. In divorce and SAPCR practice, sanctions motions often arise from deposition scheduling disputes, motion-to-quash practice, disclosure failures, expert designation problems, or noncompliance with temporary orders and discovery-control plans. Hearings are frequently set on short notice, especially when trial is approaching or post-judgment enforcement is underway.
The strategic lesson is simple: if the setting is too short, object immediately and specifically. Do not assume that a due-process argument can be raised for the first time on appeal merely because the hearing concerns sanctions. Ask for a continuance, identify the prejudice, preserve the ruling, and make a record. If the court proceeds, the record should show exactly why the notice period impaired preparation or participation.
This also has implications for post-decree property litigation. Family cases often generate turnover motions, receiver requests, registry disputes, and fee claims after final judgment. Haskett shows that appellate courts will enforce ordinary preservation rules in those post-judgment proceedings just as strictly as they do in pretrial litigation. If a judgment has not been superseded, collection efforts may proceed notwithstanding a pending appeal.
Checklists
Preserving a Notice Complaint to a Sanctions Hearing
- Review the hearing notice immediately upon service.
- Calculate the Rule 21(b) notice period as soon as the setting is received.
- If the notice is inadequate or practically prejudicial, file a written objection before the hearing.
- Request a continuance or reset expressly tied to the notice problem.
- State specifically how the short notice impairs preparation, witness availability, evidence gathering, or attendance.
- Obtain an express ruling on the objection or continuance request.
- If the court refuses to rule, make that refusal part of the record.
- Reurge the objection on the record at the hearing if the hearing goes forward.
Handling Sanctions Motions in Family Law Cases
- Confirm whether the motion seeks evidentiary sanctions, monetary sanctions, death-penalty sanctions, or attorney’s fees.
- Evaluate whether the alleged discovery misconduct is tied to a stayed deposition, motion to quash, protective order, or scheduling order.
- Prepare a response that addresses both procedural defects and the merits.
- Appear at the hearing even if you believe notice was short, unless excused by court order.
- Request a court reporter for the sanctions hearing.
- Offer exhibits and make any necessary bills of exception.
- If sanctions are imposed, review whether the order states the basis, relief awarded, and amount with sufficient clarity for appellate review.
Avoiding Waiver in Compressed Family Litigation Settings
- Object to inadequate notice in writing and on the record.
- Object to unreasonable discovery deadlines before the issue becomes an appellate complaint.
- Request additional time when a setting or discovery window prevents meaningful preparation.
- Ensure a reporter’s record is made for sanctions, enforcement, and turnover hearings.
- Support appellate issues with citation to authority and record references.
- Do not rely on the assumption that a procedural defect is “fundamental” and therefore preserved automatically.
Post-Judgment Enforcement and Supersedeas Checklist
- Determine whether the judgment has actually been superseded, not merely challenged.
- Verify whether the court has signed an order approving supersedeas or denying it.
- If enforcement is imminent, obtain a clear record of the supersedeas status.
- Advise the client that a pending appeal alone does not stop enforcement.
- Anticipate turnover, receivership, or registry-funds motions in property-related family litigation.
- Preserve any objection to post-judgment relief in the trial court with specificity.
Family Law Crossover
The procedural rule reinforced by Haskett is that a complaint about inadequate notice of a sanctions hearing under Rule 21(b) is an ordinary preservation issue governed by Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The opinion also confirms that Rule 21(b)’s general baseline is three days’ notice of a hearing. In family law practice, that mechanism can arise in motions for sanctions tied to discovery abuse in divorce litigation, motions to quash depositions in custody cases, fee sanctions in enforcement proceedings, or post-judgment hearings concerning property control and collection. The operative point is procedural: if counsel contends the hearing was set on insufficient notice, the objection must be made in the trial court, along with any request for continuance or other relief necessary to create a record of harm.
Citation
Haskett v. Pitchford, No. 01-25-00125-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 15, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~133b2002-93e0-42fb-9d21-9b2a4af77f3a~~
Share this content: