In re Florance
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6655
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Relator Florance challenged a trial court order declaring him a vexatious litigant on October 14, 2010 after the court’s plenary power had expired.
- The Court previously issued a memorandum opinion denying relief but vacated it on July 26, 2012 following rehearing en banc.
- Real party in interest (Taylor) and respondent (Rusch) argued the trial court had inherent power to grant the motion despite expiration of plenary jurisdiction.
- Florance I concluded the August 5, 2010 dismissal order was final and that post-judgment motions did not extend plenary jurisdiction.
- The issue presented is whether the vexatious-litigant order issued after plenary power expired was void and subject to mandamus.
- The court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the vexatious-litigant order after plenary power expired and conditionally granted mandamus to vacate it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction after plenary power expiration | Florance contends lack of jurisdiction voids the order. | Taylor/Rusch assert inherent power to act post-expiration permits the order. | Void order; no jurisdiction to issue. |
| Effect of post-judgment motions on plenary power | Florance argues post-judgment filing does not extend jurisdiction. | Taylor/Rusch argue some motions may toll or preserve authority. | Plenary power not extended by the motion; order void. |
| Availability of mandamus relief | Florance seeks mandamus to compel vacatur of void order. | Respondent contends relief not appropriate if jurisdiction exists. | Mandamus granted; vacatur required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard for orig. proceeding; abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus relief standards for original proceedings)
- Florance v. State, 352 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (Florance I; finality of dismissal order and plenary-jurisdiction limits)
- Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp., 16 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] Dist. 2000) (inherent power to enforce judgments; anti-suit injunctions)
- Drum v. Calhoun, 299 S.W.3d 360 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (vexatious-litigant statute; limits on frivolous litigation)
- Scott & White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. 1996) (sanctions and post-plenary jurisdiction concerns)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (sanctions/order post-dismissal context; plenary-jurisdiction considerations)
- Qwest Microwave, Inc. v. Bedard, 756 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988) (void or valid judgments; mandamus review for void judgments)
- Dikeman v. Snell, 490 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1973) (mandamus relief for void judgments; historical approach)
- Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) (duty to vacate void judgments; lack of discretion)