Opinion
05-24-01256-CV
12-23-2024
D. CRAIG WALKER, Appellant v. HOUGHTON CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-08652
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's July 26, 2024 order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment and ordering appellant to pay damages. Asserting the trial court lacked plenary jurisdiction to sign the appealed order, appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons explained below, we agree with appellant that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it signed the July 26 order.
Appellee did not file a response to appellant's motion.
Appellee sued appellant and Clearview Partners, L.P. When Clearview Partners failed to answer the lawsuit, appellee filed a motion for default judgment against Clearview Partners. On October 31, 2023, the trial court granted appellee's motion for default judgment. Although that order specifically referenced the motion, it also included finality language stating that "[t]his judgment disposes of all claims and all parties and is final and appealable for all purposes." No party filed a postjudgment motion challenging that order, but on January 9, 2024, appellee filed a motion to sever and enter final judgment. The trial court granted the motion and severed appellee's claims against Clearview Partners into a new cause number. Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment on its claims against appellant. The trial court's July 26 order granting that motion is the subject of this appeal.
A judgment with clear and unequivocal language finally disposing of a case is effective even if inadvertent. See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247, 249 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court loses subject matter jurisdiction over a case thirty days after a judgment finally disposing of a case is signed if no party files a timely post-judgment motion extending the trial court's plenary power. See Rawls v. La Fogata Mexican Grill, 658 S.W.3d 898, 900 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2022, pet. denied). An order signed after a trial court loses plenary power is void. See State ex. rel Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction over an appeal from a void order is limited to vacating the order and dismissing the appeal. See id.
The trial court's October 31 order included unequivocal language that finally disposed of the underlying case. See Daredia, 317 S.W.3d at 249. Because no party filed a post-judgment motion extending the trial court's plenary power, the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction on November 30, 2023. See Rawls, 658 S.W.3d at 900. All action taken after that date, including the appealed July 26 order, is void. See Latty 907 S.W.2d at 486. Accordingly, we vacate the July 26, 2024 order and dismiss the appeal.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court's July 26, 2024 order and DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.