Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00276-CV __________________ JONATHAN FOURIE, Appellant V. KIRSTEN FOURIE, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 418th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-04-06867-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from the denial of an Application for a Protective Order and an award of sanctions. On April 30, 2025, Appellant, Jonathan Fourie (“Appellant” or “Jonathan”), filed an Application for Protective Order (the “Application”) in Montgomery County, Texas, against his spouse, Appellee, Kirsten Fourie (“Appellee” or “Kirsten”). At the time Jonathan filed the Application, Jonathan and Kirsten had a divorce and custody proceeding pending in Harris County, Texas. The 1 Application was assigned to the 418th Judicial District Court in Montgomery County, Texas (the trial court). In the Application for Protective Order, Jonathan alleged that Kirsten had engaged in acts of “family violence” against him and he attached an affidavit outlining specific instances with dates of the alleged family violence. In response to the Application, Kirsten filed a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (the Motion for Sanctions) and specifically asserted that Jonathan’s claim is barred by res judicata because Jonathan had already made the same exact allegations of family violence when he sought a protective order in Harris County, in Cause No. 2024-59639, styled Jonathan Soubielle Fourie v. Kirsten Beckham Fourie, and the Harris County District Court entered an Order denying his Application for Protective Order. As exhibits to the Motion for Sanctions, Kirsten attached a copy of the Harris County Application and Order denying it which is signed by the trial court in the Harris County case. Kirsten alleged that Jonathan should be sanctioned under Rule 13 for now filing a duplicative Application in Montgomery County in bad faith and for harassment. The Application and the Motion for Sanctions were both set for and heard in the trial court in Montgomery County on May 28, 2025. At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied the Application, granted the Motion for Sanctions, and entered one handwritten Order denying the Application and granting sanctions in the amount 2 of $5,000 against Jonathan and his attorney, and the trial court also entered another typed Order denying the Application. Evidence and Record from the Hearing The record demonstrates that the trial court called the case for trial at 9:00 a.m. and the parties and their clients appeared. The trial court notified the parties to exchange exhibits while some other matters on the docket were dealt with by the court, and upon returning and proceeding further, the Court learned that Jonathan’s attorney had failed to provide any exhibits to Kirsten’s attorney as instructed. When the trial court asked Jonathan’s attorney why he failed to exchange exhibits the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: All right. [Jonathan’s attorney], you may call your first. [KIRSTEN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, before we get started, you told us to exchange exhibits about an hour ago. I’ve not received a single document from [Jonathan’s attorney]. THE COURT: So [Jonathan’s attorney], am I to assume you have no exhibits you intend to offer into evidence? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. I was preparing that exhibit list. THE COURT: So you do have exhibits that you intend to offer into evidence. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: We were set for trial at 9:00 o’clock this morning. I think a little after 9:00 you were in front of me. I had to place you on hold to work through my docket. Did I not instruct y’all to show each other your proposed exhibits? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: You did, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there some reason you didn’t show [Kirsten’s Attorney] your proposed exhibits? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, she has our exhibits because we’ve shared them in the past. Nothing has changed. 3 THE COURT: In the past when? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: At a previous hearing. THE COURT: So, Counsel, let’s -- I don’t like hiding my cards very often. If I understand the basis for [Kirsten’s Attorney]’s Rule 13 motion for sanctions against your client and I think even you individually -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- it’s because she’s alleging that these allegations in this case w[ere] already tried to another judge and denied. Now if I’m hearing you correctly, are you telling me, hey, Judge, I showed [Kirsten’s Attorney] these exhibits the last time we tried this case and I lost. Is that what you mean when you say she saw them before? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Not exactly. THE COURT: So you filed this suit on April 30th, yes? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Correct. THE COURT: If I’m remembering correctly, your application requested a temporary ex parte protective order. I didn’t grant one. I set this for a final trial. You and your client appeared at that date, and the Respondent hadn’t been served. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s correct. THE COURT: And when you spoke to me, you indicated that you hadn’t served her because you wanted to come to your final trial date the last trial setting and convince me to sign the temporary ex parte protective order that I wasn’t willing to sign initially. I refused. I didn’t put your case on a dismissal docket. You asked me to reset it. I reset it to today’s date. We’re set for a final trial. And here we are. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Are you telling me that the exhibits that you want to offer into evidence today, you’ve shown [Kirsten’s Attorney] since April 30th of 2025? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, that’s not what I am representing, Your Honor. THE COURT: So if you showed them to her beforehand, when else would you have shown them to her other than at the prior trial that occurred between these parties? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, for the sake of those exhibits, I’m fine moving forward without them. THE COURT: I don’t know what that means. Can you answer my question? 4 [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Have I shown them to her an additional time? Not since our last hearing. THE COURT: So when you told me five minutes ago when we’ve been playing on this little merry-go-round now, when you said, Judge, I’ve already shown [Kirsten’s Attorney] my exhibits that was when this case was tried between these parties previously -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s correct, Judge. THE COURT: -- in front of another judge. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s correct, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. So am I now hearing you say that you do not intend to offer any exhibits into evidence today? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, if the Court would grant time, I have prepared an exhibit list and exhibits. THE COURT: Can you answer my question? I thought -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: If need be. If need be, yes, sir. THE COURT: If need be? Counsel, you were here at 9:00 o’clock standing in front of me. And I said both sides show each other your exhibits. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s correct. THE COURT: You’ve had an hour and a half. And if I’m understanding you correctly, you did not show [Kirsten’s Attorney] any proposed exhibits. Am I understanding correctly? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes. THE COURT: So are you now telling me that you intend to go forward without offering any exhibits into evidence? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: But for our rebuttal evidence. THE COURT: Is that yes or no? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. So Applicant doesn’t intend to offer any exhibits. After the foregoing exchange, the trial court allowed the case to proceed, and Jonathan was called as a witness. Jonathan stated that he would describe his relationship with Kirsten as an “abusive relationship.” The trial court then asked Jonathan the following: THE COURT: How are you related to the Respondent? THE WITNESS: I am her husband. 5 THE COURT: You’re married to her right now? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. Have you filed for divorce anywhere? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, Harris County. THE COURT: Okay. Has she filed for divorce anywhere? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay. [KIRSTEN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s incorrect. We have a counterpetition on file, Your Honor, in the case in Harris County. THE COURT: All right. So there’s a divorce case pending in Harris County. Do you have the same lawyer in that case? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Does she have the same lawyer in that case? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Q. (BY [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]) Now, with regards to the interactions, how would you describe your relationship with Ms. Fourie? THE COURT: Did you ask for a protective order against your wife previously somewhere else? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Was that in the divorce case or a different case? THE WITNESS: In this case, but they sent it to a different court in Harris County. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, if I may -- THE COURT: Excuse me one second. Did you have the same lawyer representing you in the application for a protective order that you filed against your wife in Harris County? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: And did your wife have the same attorney in response to that? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. So [Jonathan’s attorney]. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: If I’m hearing correctly, you filed an application on behalf of Mr. Fourie previously in Harris County against this same Respondent, correct? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. 6 THE COURT: When was that case tried? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I can pull that up. [KIRSTEN’S ATTORNEY]: 12th day of November, 2024. I have the transcript. THE COURT: So do you agree, [Jonathan’s attorney]? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. Now, with regards -- THE COURT: And, [Jonathan’s attorney], do you agree that application was denied? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: It was denied on the basis of -- THE COURT: Do you agree that that application was denied? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: All right. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: But, Your Honor, I fear there’s not the proper context being laid. THE COURT: I don’t fear. Go ahead. [KIRSTEN’S ATTORNEY]: May I take the witness on voir dire? THE COURT: Not yet. Q. (BY [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]) Now, you spoke to abuse within the relationship? A. [THE WITNESS:] Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you contend that your wife has committed family violence against you since November 12 of 2024? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. When was the first time she committed family violence against you after November 12th of 2024? THE WITNESS: She -- THE COURT: Give me a date. THE WITNESS: The first -- November 24th or something. It would be a Thursday. I picked my son up. THE COURT: So November 24th, 2024. What did your wife do? THE WITNESS: She’s not supposed to be present when I pick my son up from daycare. THE COURT: How did she commit family violence against you? THE WITNESS: Intimidation. THE COURT: November 24th was a Sunday. THE WITNESS: It would have been a Thursday then. THE COURT: So do you know what date? THE WITNESS: That would be the harassment -- sir, when you mean family violence, do you mean like physical? 7 THE COURT: Buddy, I’m your judge. I’m not your lawyer. I’m not here to answer your questions. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I’d like to -- THE COURT: I bet you would. Some Thursday in November you claim that your wife committed family violence against you when you were picking up Junior from school, right? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. What do you claim happened? THE WITNESS: Just intimidation. THE COURT: What did she do to intimidate you? THE WITNESS: Be present. THE COURT: Other than being present, how did she intimate you on that date? THE WITNESS: On that date it was being present. I have a separate day. THE COURT: I’m going one at a time. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: . . . So November, Thursday, 2024, you’re picking up Junior from school. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You’re telling me that Wife committed family violence against you by being present and her presence intimidated you. Am I understanding you correctly? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Is that everything regarding that incident? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. What’s the next incident you claim that your wife committed family violence against you after November 12th of 2024? THE WITNESS: The next incident was December 28th, I believe to be the day that I met her at the police station to drop off my son. And she was banging on my window on my car. And it was quite scary and -- THE COURT: So Wife bangs on your window of your car at a police station. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: While there happened to be any police around? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: No? THE WITNESS: No, sir. 8 THE COURT: Okay. What happened after she banged on your window? THE WITNESS: She blocked me in with her car and I just -- I said get back in your car. And I guess she did. And I brought my son over there. THE COURT: So you’re supposed to - - did this happen to take place at noon by any chance? THE WITNESS: I don’t recall. THE COURT: Okay. This was a designated time that you were supposed to meet your wife at a police station to exchange the child, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Was this pursuant to a court order? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Was this a court order out of your divorce case? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Is this a temporary order? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: That temporary order, does it say who Junior primarily resides with? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Who is that? Mom? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So pursuant to this temporary order in your divorce case, Mom has custody. You have visitation. And this incident on December 28 was when you were returning the child to Mom at the end of your Christmas visitation, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And this court order requires y’all to exchange at a police station, yes? THE WITNESS: It’s a little vague, but, yes. We decided that the police station would work that day. THE COURT: So the order doesn’t require a police station. You and Mom came to that conclusion on your own is what you’re telling me. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: So you and Mom meet at a police station. Who got there first? THE WITNESS: Me. THE COURT: And Junior is in your car, right? THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. She got there first. THE COURT: Okay. So Mom is there first, right? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Then you showed up, right? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Junior is in your car, right? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: How old is Junior? THE WITNESS: Three. THE COURT: Okay. And how long -- once you got there, what did you do when you arrived? THE WITNESS: I parked the car in a parking spot. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: That’s when all of a sudden I saw her car just fly up behind me and she’s out of the car and I just -- THE COURT: Were you late? THE WITNESS: Three minutes. THE COURT: Three minutes late? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Other than banging on the window and pulling in behind you, do you claim that she did anything else that you are telling me that constitutes family violence on that day? THE WITNESS: Not on that day, no, sir. THE COURT: Did Mom get Junior? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And both of y’all drove away in your own cars and never had to speak with law enforcement there at the police station. Am I understanding correctly? THE WITNESS: I called the police after. THE COURT: Did anyone get arrested or charged with a crime? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay. When is the next incident you claim that family violence occurred since November 12th of 2024? Where do you live? THE WITNESS: I live in Montgomery, sir. THE COURT: Go ahead. The next incident. THE WITNESS: Next incident? There’s several intimidation where she’s not supposed to be sort of things. THE COURT: When is the next incident you allege that she has committed family violence against you since December 28th of 2024? THE WITNESS: The next one I would say it would be the second Thursday of January -- the fourth Thursday of January being present where she’s not supposed to be. 10 THE COURT: A Thursday in January. Is this like the first one, the Thursday in November she was where she wasn’t supposed to be that intimidated you? THE WITNESS: That happens quite a bit, yes, sir. THE COURT: By being there. Nothing else, just by being there. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Are there any other alleged incidents involving family violence since this Thursday in January? THE WITNESS: No, sir.1 The trial court then asked Jonathan’s attorney what else he had which would show any “family violence” and the attorney stated that when Kirsten was arrested sometime before November of 2024, Kirsten had allegedly made “admissions to police officers” and that she had lied to the judge in the application for protective order in Harris County and he wants to show she was “lying now.” The trial court again asked: THE COURT: Are you telling me that you filed this lawsuit and wanted to present evidence to me about allegations of family violence that predate November 12th of 2024? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That also. I mean -- THE COURT: Is that what your intent was or is when you filed this suit? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. I believe my client-- THE COURT: So you’re telling me, Judge, we already teed this up once and lost. I’m alleging, my client is alleging, that there’s been family violence since November 12th of 2024, and that’s all we’re trying to bring to the Court today. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s not all we’re trying to bring to the Court today. 1 We note that none of the post-November 12, 2024 allegations of family violence appear in the Application or affidavit attached to the Application that was filed in Montgomery County. 11 THE COURT: So back to my question. Are you telling me, Judge, I want to present evidence of family violence that predates November 12th of 2024? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: In addition to -- yes. THE COURT: Is the answer to my question yes? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes. In addition to, yes. THE COURT: Tell me how that’s not res judicata and why I shouldn’t sanction you for res judicata filing a suit to retry something that you already tried and lost. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I’m not refiling the same suit. It’s -- THE COURT: Answer my question. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor. You asked me why you shouldn’t. THE COURT: Show me some legal authority that says you can put on evidence of alleged family violence that predates the date of your last trial where a judge denied your application. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, it’s not evidence. THE COURT: Don’t talk to me. Show me law that that’s not res judicata, like a case or a statute. Show me something like in black and white. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Well, I can give a principle of law. THE COURT: I know principles. I feel like I know them pretty well. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Show me one that makes me think that what I think is wrong. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Okay. Witness credibility. Am I allowed to impeach witness credibility, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yeah, November 12th, 2024, you could have impeached any witness you wanted to. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Try again. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: And so today -- THE COURT: No. Try again. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, that’s what it’s all based on -- THE COURT: So are you telling me -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: This person was lying then and they’re lying now. THE COURT: Don’t interrupt me, Counsel. I want to make sure I’m hearing you right. Are you telling me, Judge, I intentionally filed this 12 application for a protective order so I could have a second bite at the apple on the same case that I lost because I want to prove to a different judge that she lied. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. In addition -- THE COURT: That’s what you pretty much just said to me. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, what I’m saying is in agreeance with my client’s testimony -- THE COURT: If you can’t show me a statute or a case to convince me that we can go back and hear evidence of stuff that happened before your last trial date, the only thing we’re talking about today is allegations of family violence since November 12th. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, that’s fine. THE COURT: You understand me? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: So, Judge -- THE COURT: Do you understand the words -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I’m trying to understand. Can I ask a clarifying question? THE COURT: If you would stop interrupting me you might have a chance of understanding me better. Do you understand the words that just came out of my mouth? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to try one more time. I’m going to talk slow[ly]. Unless you can show me a case or a statute that would convince me to allow you to present evidence of alleged family violence that occurred on or before November 12th of 2024, we won’t be getting into any of that evidence today. Did you understand that sentence? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Do you have a statute or a case that you wish to show me? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes. THE COURT: Show me. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: If I have time -- THE COURT: You said yes. Show me. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, because I’m sure -- THE COURT: Show me right now. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: May I have time, Your Honor? THE COURT: You’ve had since April 30th. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I didn’t know you’d want this, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: You didn’t know about res judicata before you filed this lawsuit? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I don’t feel that I can express myself at all. THE COURT: Am I to understand that you do not have a case or a statute to show me right now? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge -- THE COURT: This wasn’t a surprise. Your opposing counsel filed a Rule 13 motion against you. I haven’t seen one of those against an applicant in a protective order in 17 years. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: But what she didn’t file is a -- THE COURT: You knew what she was alleging -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: -- a certificate of conference -- THE COURT: -- before -- [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, her -- THE COURT: You’re going to keep interrupting me, aren’t you, Counsel? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I can’t say anything, Judge. THE COURT: Yes? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I can’t say anything. THE COURT: Is the answer to my question, yes, you’re just going to keep interrupting me? Did you get a copy of the Rule 13 motion a few days ago? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I got the copy of the motion but there’s no certificate of conference. THE COURT: Who cares if you had a certificate of conference or not, Counsel? You got the motion. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Because the rules of this --this -- this - - okay. Okay. THE COURT: Counsel, would you agree with me if you got the motion you probably read it, yes? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Probably read it? THE COURT: Did you look at what it said? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I saw it was a motion for sanctions -- THE COURT: Did you read it? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: -- but I know we hadn’t had a conference. THE COURT: What was my question? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Did I read it in its entirety? No. 14 THE COURT: Okay. So you got a motion from [Kirsten’s attorney] and for whatever reason you chose not to read it entirely. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Because I know there’s no conference, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Per required by this Court’s orders. THE COURT: Do you have a case or a statute to show me right now? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I’m prepared to listen to any other evidence you want to elicit from your client from after November 12th, 2024 to the present. Do you have any other questions for your client? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. Can I ask a clarifying question? THE COURT: Is the answer to my question no? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. I don’t have any more questions. THE COURT: All right. The witness is passed. On cross-examination, Jonathan agreed that the allegations of abuse in the Montgomery County Application and in the Harris County Application are similar. Jonathan also agreed that the daycare or school where his son attends school is the same school where Kirsten works. Jonathan then called Kirsten as an adverse witness and the trial court instructed Jonathan’s attorney that he could not go into anything that allegedly occurred before November of 2024 because that was part of the protective order hearing in Harris County, and Jonathan’s attorney said he understood. That said, the first question Jonathan’s attorney asked was about Kirsten’s alleged arrest in July of 2024, which was prior to November 2024, and was also part of the Harris County proceeding. Kirsten’s attorney made an objection which was sustained. Jonathan’s 15 attorney then asked whether they had attended temporary hearings prior to November 2024, and about alleged admissions made prior to November 2024. The trial court sustained objections to the questions and again instructed the attorney not to continue attempting to retry the Harris County Protective Order. On direct from her attorney, Kirsten testified that she works at the school where her son goes to daycare, and she denied that she had intimidated her husband. Kirsten stated there is nothing in the temporary orders that says she cannot be at the school when Jonathan comes to pick up their son. Kirsten testified that they previously attended a hearing on a protective order in Harris County, and the trial court in that matter dismissed that suit and denied Jonathan’s request for a protective order. And Kirsten testified that she had reviewed the allegations in the Harris County Protective Order proceeding and the allegations Jonathan made in the Application in Montgomery County and the allegations appear to be the same. Kirsten stated that the alleged criminal charges Jonathan filed against her were dismissed, and then in April of 2025, Jonanthan tried to make the same allegations against her again, and those were also dismissed. Kirsten’s attorney testified at the hearing that she is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, and she is board certified in the area of family and child welfare law, with board certification in family law since 2010 and child welfare law since 2019, and her hourly rate is $450 an hour. Kirsten’s attorney testified that the 16 Application in this case was filed by Jonathan for the purposes of bad faith, and for harassment, that her client had traveled from Harris County where she resides, and where Jonathan said he resides on the Application. According to Kirsten’s attorney, she spent time preparing the Motion for Sanctions and obtained the exhibits attached to the Motion for Sanctions, and she attended the hearing for over two hours, and her reasonable and necessary fees are no less than $5,000. Kirsten’s attorney asked the trial court to sanction Jonathan and his attorney jointly for filing the Application with the same affidavit, except for the font, that he used in the Harris County case, and simply adding one sentence about how he came to Montgomery County because he could not get relief in Harris County and “other than that sentence, the affidavits are 100 percent the same.” On cross-examination, Kirsten’s attorney agreed she did not have any itemized billing exhibits to show at the hearing. And, on cross- examination she was asked about whether she had heard Jonathan’s testimony about “family violence” as follows: Q. (BY [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]) And you heard today testimony from Jonathan Fourie that there has been, in his opinion, additional acts of family violence, correct? A. I heard his testimony. I don’t believe that anything he said rises to the level of family violence. The trial court asked Jonathan’s attorney if he had any rebuttal witnesses or further evidence to present at the hearing, and the attorney answered, “No, your honor.” Then the trial court closed the evidence and allowed the parties to make a 17 closing argument. Jonathan’s attorney argued that his client has been abused by Kirsten and that the case was about truth, and he argued he had told the trial court in the Application he filed in Montgomery County that he had previously filed an Application in Harris County when he made a statement in his affidavit stating they tried every avenue to get relief in Harris County but could not get any relief so he was now trying Montgomery County. Jonathan’s attorney agreed that Jonathan did not file an appeal from the Harris County District Court’s decision denying his application for a protective order. Jonathan’s attorney argued he could not get the State to give him the evidence he needed to prove his case to the Harris County District Court. During the closing arguments the trial court then asked Jonathan’s attorney, THE COURT: Are you kidding me? Your closing is telling me flat out I want a do-over. Is that your closing? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: I want a do-over because I didn’t have the evidence that I wanted to have at the last trial. Isn’t that what you’re telling me? Judge, I couldn’t present the evidence I wanted to present November 12th because the cops, or whoever, wouldn’t give it to me. That’s what you were just saying, yes? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That’s in addition to, Judge. THE COURT: Is that what you were just telling me? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I did say that, yes, Judge. THE COURT: How is that not you telling me I came here for a do- over? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: I’ve also said, Your Honor, that my client has experienced additional incidents of abuse. THE COURT: I heard three allegations. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes. So it’s not just one or the other. It’s both. And she’s going to continue because nothing’s happening. 18 THE COURT: She’s going to continue going to work and being at work where Dad is supposed to pick up the child? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, Junior is going to start looking more like Senior here in a little bit. And what’s going to happen to Junior? What’s going to happen to Junior when he mouths off? It’s going to be the exact same thing. She’s admitted it over and over and over again. THE COURT: Anything else, Counsel? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Yes. Yes. There’s a lot more. There’s a lot more. THE COURT: You have 30 seconds to finish your closing argument. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, it’s important to be about truth and it’s important to be about protecting folks who can’t protect themselves. My client has moved away. He’s doing whatever he can. He’s using his Second Amendment rights. And his son is not going to have that same ability -- THE COURT: What does that mean? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: That means he’s doing what he can to protect himself, Your Honor. THE COURT: He’s using his Second Amendment rights. What are you talking about? [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, the Second Amendment allows -- THE COURT: I know what the Second Amendment does. I’m trying to understand what evidence I heard in this trial that talks about the Second Amendment. [JONATHAN’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I’m making the point that he’s doing everything in his power to protect himself. And, unfortunately, up until this point, law enforcement has not supported him. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. At the close of the hearing the trial court signed two orders, one granting the motion for sanctions sanctioning Jonathan and his attorney, jointly and severally in the amount of $5,000, and one order denying the Application for a Protective Order. 19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion for New Trial Jonathan filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jonathan also filed Plaintiff’s Conditional Motion to Vacate, Modify, or For New Trial (“Motion for New Trial”), alleging that Jonathan was waiting on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and that he would assert more specific grounds after the findings were filed. In his Motion for New Trial, Jonathan requested that the May 28, 2025 Judgment be vacated, modified, or a new trial be granted because: Plaintiff believes the judgment may be contrary to the law and the evidence presented at trial. Plaintiff also asserts that material rulings made during the proceedings may have constituted error. The judgment may also be subject to vacatur or modification based on information not available at the time of trial, and/or based on legal grounds to be articulated upon receipt of the Court’s findings. On July 8, 2025, Jonathan filed a Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On July 15, 2025, the trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the trial court also entered an Order denying the Motion for New Trial. The trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact 1. On April 30, 2025, JONATHAN SOUBIELLE FOURIE, Applicant (hereinafter “JONATHAN”), through his attorney of record,_[], filed an Application for Protective Order against KIRSTEN BECKHAM FOURIE, Respondent (hereinafter “KIRSTEN”). 2. JONATHAN’s Application failed to clearly identify the parties’ suit for dissolution of marriage and suit affecting the parent-child relationship that was pending in the 312th District Court of Harris 20 County, Texas, and further failed to include a copy of any court order affecting the conservatorship, support, and possession of or access to the child. 3. JONATHAN’s Application alleged eight incidents of family violence which JONATHAN claimed occurred between January 19, 2024, and July 8, 2024. 4. On May 22, 2025, KIRSTEN, through her attorney of record, [], filed her Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. On May 28, 2025, both parties appeared in person and through their respective attorneys of record, and a bench trial was conducted. 6. JONATHAN had previously filed an Application for Protective Order in Cause No. 2024-59639 in the 280th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on or about September 4, 2024.[] 7. JONATHAN’s Application in Cause No. 2024-59639 alleged the same eight incidents of family violence made the basis of his Application filed in this matter on April 3, 2025. 8. A trial was conducted before Judge Damiane Curvey of the 280th District Court of Harris County, Texas, regarding JONATHAN’s Application in Cause No. 2024-59639 on November 12, 2024. On this date, JONATHAN appeared with his attorney, [], and KIRSTEN appeared with her attorney, []. 9. On November 12, 2024, Judge Curvey denied JONATHAN’s Application filed in Cause No. 2024-59639 in its entirety, and dissolved the Temporary Ex Parte Protective Order that had been previously granted. 10. JONATHAN failed to present any credible evidence that family violence had occurred since November 12, 2024. 11. Without question, both JONATHAN and his attorney, [], intended to retry JONATHAN’s allegations of family violence which JONATHAN claimed occurred between January 19, 2024, and July 8, 2024. 12. JONATHAN’s testimony was not credible. 13. [Jonathan’s attorney] (electronically) signed JONATHAN’s Application filed in this matter. 14. JONATHAN signed the Affidavit and Affidavit of Abuse filed with his Application in this matter. 15. JONATHAN’s Application (and the attached Affidavit and Affidavit of Abuse) filed in this matter, was/were groundless, brought in bad faith and/or brought for the purpose of harassment. 21 16. On May 28, 2025, this court signed an Order Denying Application for Protective Order and an Order (granting sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00 against JONATHAN and his attorney, []). 17. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the sum of $5,000.00 is an appropriate sanction against JONATHAN and his attorney, []. 18. Any finding of fact that is a conclusion of law shall be deemed a conclusion of law. Conclusions of Law 19. The 418th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas has jurisdiction over the parties and the matter made the basis of this suit. 20. JONATHAN’s Application in this matter involved the same parties and the same claims that were raised (or that could have been raised) in JONATHAN’s Application in Cause No. 2024-59639, in which a final judgment was rendered. 21. Res judicata and/or collateral estoppel precluded JONATHAN from relitigating th[e] allegations he previously raised (or that could have been raised) in Cause No. 2024-59639. 22. JONATHAN failed to meet his burden of proof regarding any alleged family violence that had occurred since November 12, 2024. 23. JONATHAN’s Application filed in this matter should be denied. 24. JONATHAN’s Application (and the attached Affidavit and Affidavit of Abuse) filed in this matter, was/were groundless, brought in bad faith and/or brought for the purpose of harassment. 25. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the sum of $5,000.00 is an appropriate sanction against JONATHAN and his attorney, []. 26. Any conclusion of law that is a finding of fact shall be deemed a