in Re Paul & Cynthia Elizondo and Eagle Fabricators, Inc.
544 S.W.3d 824
| Tex. | 2018Background
- Elizondo sued builders for breach of contract, fraud, negligence and placed a lien; trial court granted a temporary injunction and later signed an order titled “Order on Defendants’ Summary Motion to Remove Invalid Lien.”
- The one‑page order contained a Lehmann‑style finality phrase stating it disposed of all claims and parties and was appealable, though it did not in fact adjudicate Elizondo’s other claims.
- The trial court’s plenary power expired 30 days after signing; weeks later the court issued an amended order omitting the finality phrase.
- Builders sought mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing the original order was final under Lehmann and the post‑plenary amended order was void as an attempt to correct judicial (not clerical) error.
- A divided court of appeals conditionally granted relief for the Builders; Elizondo sought mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court to vacate that opinion.
- The Supreme Court denied mandamus, holding the original order’s clear finality language rendered it final under Lehmann; the amended order was void because it attempted to correct judicial error after plenary power expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elizondo) | Defendant's Argument (Builders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the original order was a final judgment | The record shows the court did not intend a final judgment; the finality phrase was a clerical/author drafting error and order is ambiguous | The finality phrase is essentially Lehmann’s wording and makes the order final regardless of record; any error must be appealed | The finality phrase was clear and unequivocal; under Lehmann the order was final and the record is irrelevant |
| Whether the trial court could amend the order after plenary power expired | The court could correct the finality phrase as a clerical error under Rule 329b(f) | The amendment sought to correct a judicial (rendition) error, which must be done within 30 days; post‑plenary correction is void | The inclusion of the finality phrase was a judicial error (error in rendition); post‑plenary amendment attempting to correct it was void |
| Whether Lehmann’s finality test applies beyond summary/default judgments | Lehmann should not be extended beyond summary/default contexts; context shows no final intent here | Lehmann’s two prongs apply to any order without a conventional trial on the merits and govern finality | Lehmann applies when there is no conventional trial; its two‑prong test governs and applies here |
| Whether the result is absurd or unfair and warrants limiting Lehmann | Enforcing Lehmann here produces absurd forfeiture and will encourage inserting sneaky finality language | Lehmann promotes certainty and deters trickery; parties must appeal if uncertain | Court rejects absurdity argument; parties must err on the side of appealing when confronted with clear finality language |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (establishes two‑prong finality test for orders entered without a conventional trial)
- In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (an unequivocal order with finality language is effective even if it does not mention all parties)
- Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1986) (distinguishes clerical errors from judicial errors for post‑plenary corrections)
- In re M & O Homebuilders, Inc., 516 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (orig. proceeding) (court of appeals decision applying Lehmann to find original order final)