§ 62.044.Compulsory Counterclaim for Wrongful Sequestration

A procedural rule with a substantive consequence, and both halves matter.

If a writ is dissolved, any action for damages for wrongful sequestration must be brought as a compulsory counterclaim.

"Must" is the operative word. A compulsory counterclaim not asserted is lost — so a defendant who wins dissolution and says nothing about damages cannot sue later.

That is a trap for the unwary, and it arrives at an awkward moment. The dissolution hearing happens within ten days of the motion, and a defendant focused on recovering their property may not have turned to damages at all.

The rule has a sound rationale. Whether the sequestration was wrongful turns on the same facts as whether the writ should have issued, and trying those facts twice serves nobody.

It also protects the plaintiff from a second suit arising out of a writ already adjudicated.

Subsection (b) supplies the fee recovery: in addition to damages, the party who sought dissolution may recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in dissolution of the writ.

The fees are confined to the dissolution, not the whole case — which is the right measure, since the dissolution is the discrete piece of work the wrongful writ caused.

Without a fee provision the remedy would often be worth nothing. Damages from a short seizure may be modest, and the cost of proving them can exceed them.

The consumer goods provision goes further still, supplying a statutory minimum where the sequestered property was consumer goods.