Datril Boston v. Bryce Daniel, Inc. D/B/A Fast & Free Real Estate
14-14-00124-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 24, 2015Background
- Original suit: Cause No. 2008-74789 in Harris County; final judgment was signed in favor of appellant Datril Boston on February 21, 2011.
- After the plenary period expired (no timely post-judgment motion), appellee Bryce Daniel, Inc. filed a separate bill-of-review proceeding (Cause No. 2011-34714).
- In the bill-of-review the trial court rendered judgment vacating the 2008 judgment and entered a final judgment in the 2011 cause while the court had plenary power over the bill-of-review.
- The trial court nonetheless issued additional orders and a new docket control order in the original 2008 cause number more than two years after its plenary power over that cause had expired.
- Appellant attempted to appeal the post-plenary orders in the 2008 cause; the appellate court found those orders void and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review 2013 orders entered in Cause No. 2008-74789 after plenary power expired | Boston: Orders are void because trial court lost plenary power over 2008 cause in 2011 | Bryce Daniel: Some orders (e.g., April 30, 2013 judgment) are judgments in the 2011 bill-of-review and therefore valid | Court: Lacked jurisdiction; appeal dismissed as to the void 2008 orders |
| Whether the trial court properly proceeded in the old cause number after granting bill of review | Boston: Trial court improperly treated 2008 case as reopened; resulting orders void | Bryce Daniel: Judgment in bill-of-review was rendered and intended to vacate 2008 judgment | Court: Trial court should have proceeded under the new (2011) cause number; actions treating 2008 as reopened produced void orders |
| Whether the April 30, 2013 judgment is void merely because it references the 2008 cause number | Boston: April 30 order is void because it lists the 2008 cause number | Bryce Daniel: The face of the order shows it is a final judgment in the 2011 bill-of-review; the 2011 cause number appears (though crossed out and handwritten) | Court: April 30, 2013 judgment in the bill-of-review was rendered while court had plenary power and is not void; Boston’s request to void it was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tice v. City of Pasadena, 767 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1989) (bill of review is an independent proceeding)
- Schwartz v. Jefferson, 520 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1975) (bill of review treated as separate action)
- Amanda v. Montgomery, 877 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (refusal to sever bill-of-review from underlying case warranted mandamus relief)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe & Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2013) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify judgment after plenary power expires)