Opinion
No. 05-05-01021-CV
Opinion Filed June 7, 2006.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. Cc-05-04146-C.
Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a restricted appeal from a proceeding for enforcement of a foreign judgment. Appellant Michael Carl Maniscalco contends the foreign judgment should not be enforced as a judgment of the Dallas County Court because appellee A.H. Park previously filed the same foreign judgment in another Texas county. A.H. Park responds that the record does not support Maniscalco's assertion. We agree with A.H. Park and affirm the trial court's judment.
The record shows that on April 6, 2005, A.H. Park filed the foreign judgment in the trial court and notified Maniscalco of the filing in accordance with section 35.005 of the civil practice and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 35.005 (Vernon 1997). Maniscalco did not file a motion for new trial or other timely post-judgment motion attacking the foreign judgment. See, e.g., Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20, 24-25 (Tex.App. Dallas 1991, no pet.) (timely post-judgment motion will extend trial court's plenary jurisdiction over foreign judgment). Instead, he brought this restricted appeal.
On appeal, Maniscalco asserts the foreign judgment should not be enforced by the trial court because A.H. Park had previously filed the same judgment in another county. To support his assertion, Maniscalco relies on evidence filed in the trial court after judgment and after the trial court lost plenary jurisdiction. Specifically, more than thirty days after A.H. Park filed the judgment, it sought to enforce the judgment by requesting appointment of a receiver and/or post-judgment discovery. Maniscalco responded that the judgment should not be enforced because (1) the same judgment was previously filed in another county, and/or (2) neither the pleadings nor the judgment itself contained a recitation of jurisdiction. For the first time, Maniscalco provided the trial court with evidence to support his assertions.
A restricted appeal must (1) be brought within six months after the trial court signs the judgment, (2) by a party to the litigation, (3) who did not participate in the trial court, and (4) the error complained of must be apparent on the face of the record. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 180 S.W.3d 903, 904-05 (Tex.App. Dallas 2005, pet. denied). In this case, the question presented is whether there was error on the face of the record. The face of the record consists of all the papers on file before judgment as well as any reporter's record. Id.
Here, to show error, Maniscalco relies entirely upon post-judgment filings. Documents filed after judgment is entered are not properly considered in a restricted appeal. Laas v. Williamson, 156 S.W.3d 854, 857 n. 2 (Tex.App. Beaumont 2005, no pet. h.). Post-judgment documents can only be considered if filed with a motion for new trial or in a bill of review proceeding. See Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004). In this case, by the time Maniscalco presented any evidence to the trial court to support his complaints, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the foreign judgment. See Bahr v. Kohr, 928 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex.App. San Antonio 1996, writ denied). Because Maniscalco has not established error on the face of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.