In re Thompson
569 S.W.3d 169
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Charles and Cindy Thompson purchased property at a tax sale based on a 2005 default tax judgment.
- In 2016, Mae Landry, claiming to be an heir of a defendant in the 2005 tax suit, filed a "Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment" in the original case more than ten years after the judgment.
- The Thompsons intervened to protect their title and moved to dismiss Landry's motion for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the trial court had lost plenary power and Landry’s filing did not confer jurisdiction.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the default judgment void and subject to collateral attack, and denied the Thompsons’ motion to dismiss.
- The Thompsons sought mandamus relief; the appellate court concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Landry’s motion and conditionally granted mandamus, directing dismissal of Landry’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompsons) | Defendant's Argument (Landry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Landry's motion to set aside a 2005 default judgment filed in 2016 | Pls: Trial court lost plenary power long before 2016; motion filed in original cause number does not restore jurisdiction | Def: Motion could be entertained as a direct or collateral attack because the judgment was void for lack of notice | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction; the motion was not a timely direct attack, not a qualifying bill of review, and not a collateral attack in the same case |
| Whether Landry's filing in the original cause number could be treated as a bill of review | Pls: A bill of review must be filed as a new, independent suit under a different cause number and within four years | Def: Motion in original case should be sufficient to set aside a void judgment | Held: Filing in the original case is not a bill of review; bill of review must be a separate action and timely |
| Whether the motion could qualify as a collateral attack | Pls: Collateral attacks require a new proceeding under a different cause number; filing in same case is a direct attack | Def: Because the judgment was void for lack of notice, it may be attacked at any time | Held: Because Landry filed in the same lawsuit, the motion was a direct attack and not a collateral attack |
| Whether mandamus relief was appropriate | Pls: Trial court's order denying dismissal was void and mandamus is warranted | Def: (Implicit) relief should be denied because judgment is void and subject to attack | Held: Mandamus granted conditionally; trial court ordered to withdraw its order denying dismissal and dismiss Landry's motion for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus relief requirements)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for original proceedings)
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (void orders and mandamus)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (distinguishing direct and collateral attacks on judgments)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (collateral attack requires a new lawsuit)
- Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (trial court plenary power and rule 329b)