Florance v. State
352 S.W.3d 867
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Florance filed a first lien against Brenda Taylor, then Collin County Clerk, on December 15, 2005.
- Taylor moved for judicial review under Gov't Code § 51.903; trial court found the lien fraudulent on July 13, 2006.
- Florance appealed; this Court affirmed and dismissed, In re A Purported Lien or Claim Against Collin County Clerk Brenda Taylor, 219 S.W.3d 620 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007).
- On June 9, 2010, Florance filed a bill of review against the State and Taylor alleging lack of notice and entitlement to equitable relief.
- The State filed an advisory on July 2, 2010 challenging jurisdiction; the trial court dismissed the petition on July 6, 2010 for absence of jurisdiction.
- Taylor filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a vexatious-litigant motion on September 2, 2010; the court later declared Florance a vexatious litigant on October 14, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether July 6 order was final and appealable | Florance argues Rule 306a extended the deadline | Court lacked jurisdiction; 306a does not extend beyond 90 days | No extension; untimely notice; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether August 5 order was a final judgment | Amended petition created a new final order with extended time | No, it did not alter judgment within appellate window | August 5 order final; but untimely notice remains |
| Whether Rule 306a or postjudgment motions extended plenary power | Rule 306a and findings could restart clocks | No valid extension proven; hearing required for 306a(5) | Neither extended plenary power or deadlines |
| Whether the vexatious-litigant motion affected appellate timetable | Motion extended jurisdiction | Motion sought separate relief, did not alter judgment | Did not extend plenary power or deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality standards for appeals in Texas)
- Leach v. Brown, 292 S.W.2d 329 (Tex. 1956) (dual finality concepts in amended petitions)
- Ritzell v. Espeche, 87 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. 2002) (finality when no remaining claims)
- Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip. Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (plenary power extension by timely postjudgment motions)
- In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2006) (notice-based extension of appeal period via 306a)
- Levit v. Adams, 850 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1993) (rule 306a(4) on late-notice limitations)
- Conquest v. Spencer, 331 S.W.3d 537 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (necessity of proper notice and procedure)
- Olvera v. Olvera, 705 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986) (hearing requirement for rule 306a motion)