Dakota Pike-Grant v. Jeffrey Alan Grant
447 S.W.3d 884
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Dakota Pike-Grant and Jeffrey Grant divorced; final divorce decree signed November 29, 2011. The decree contains conflicting recitals: one stating the final hearing was November 29 (and that respondent appeared), another stating the final hearing was September 27, 2011.
- Trial court records show a September 27, 2011 final hearing at which Jeffrey (petitioner below) participated (telephonically) and Dakota (respondent below) and her counsel did not appear; reporter’s record exists for September 27 and confirms nonparticipation.
- Docket entries, court orders, coordinator notices, counsel’s withdrawal motion, and the reporter’s record repeatedly identify September 27 as the hearing date and show Dakota did not participate; no reporter’s record or notice supports a November 29 hearing.
- Dakota filed a restricted appeal (allowed when a party did not participate in the hearing that produced the judgment) within the Rule 30 time frame and obtained temporary postjudgment orders noting the final hearing was September 27.
- The court of appeals dismissed the restricted appeal for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the divorce decree’s first-page recital that Dakota appeared at a November 29 hearing; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grant) | Defendant's Argument (Pike-Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dakota participated in the hearing that produced the divorce decree | Decree’s first-page recital shows a November 29 hearing at which Dakota appeared; therefore restricted appeal unavailable | Record (docket, reporter’s record, orders) shows final hearing was Sept. 27 and Dakota did not participate, so restricted appeal is available | Court held the record conclusively shows the hearing occurred Sept. 27 and Dakota did not participate; restricted appeal was wrongly dismissed |
| Whether the conflicting recitals should be resolved by the record | The decree recitals control to show appearance on Nov. 29 | The broader record should resolve the conflict in favor of nonparticipation and liberal construction of Rule 30 | Court looked to the underlying record and resolved the conflict for Sept. 27, favoring the right to restricted appeal |
| Whether absence of reporter’s record for Nov. 29 undermines claim of a Nov. 29 hearing | Nov. 29 recital is enough to infer a hearing occurred | Lack of any docket entry, notice, or reporter record for Nov. 29 indicates no hearing occurred that day | Court found no evidence of a Nov. 29 hearing and emphasized reporter and docket entries confirming Sept. 27 |
| Whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the restricted appeal | Court of appeals correctly relied on decree recital to dismiss | Dismissal was error because the record conclusively establishes nonparticipation | Court reversed court of appeals and remanded for further consideration of remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (elements required for a restricted appeal)
- Stubbs v. Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1985) (liberal construction of nonparticipation requirement for restricted appeals)
- Lawyers Lloyds of Tex. v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096 (Tex. 1941) (historical precursor endorsing liberal construction of appeal rights)
- McAllen Med. Ctr. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2001) (court’s jurisdiction to review court of appeals’ exercise of jurisdiction)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for ruling on legal-sufficiency matters of law)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for ruling when a matter of law is conclusively established)