in the Interest of A.J.G, S.S.G., and R.M.G.
05-14-01469-CV
Tex. App.Apr 7, 2015Background
- Trial court signed final divorce decree on August 14, 2014.
- Appellant (pro se prisoner) alleges he first received notice of the judgment via opposing counsel’s letter dated September 11, 2014, received about September 17, 2014 (more than 20 days after signing).
- Appellant filed a motion for new trial on September 26, 2014 (filed under the prison-mailbox rule) and filed a notice of appeal on November 10, 2014 (also under the prison-mailbox rule).
- The Court of Appeals questioned timeliness because Rule 306a requires a trial-court finding (on sworn motion) to establish when a party first received notice or actual knowledge of the judgment to trigger extended deadlines.
- Appellant filed a Rule 306a motion in the trial court on February 2, 2015, which the Court held was untimely because the trial court’s plenary power on a 306a motion expired December 31, 2014 based on appellant’s alleged September 17 notice date.
- Because the 306a motion was untimely, appellant could not rely on Rule 306a to extend appellate timetables; his notice of appeal was therefore untimely and the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant timely invoked Rule 306a to extend appellate deadlines | Appellant says he first received notice ~Sept 17, 2014 and thus his post-judgment filings (motion for new trial and notice of appeal) were timely under Rule 306a | Appellee implicitly argues no timely Rule 306a showing was made in trial court to invoke extension | Held: Appellant’s Rule 306a motion was filed Feb 2, 2015, after the trial court’s plenary power expired (Dec 31, 2014); therefore Rule 306a was not invoked and deadlines were not extended |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over the untimely notice of appeal | Appellant asserts prison-mailbox rule dates and Rule 306a extension make his notice timely | Appellee argues absence of a timely 306a ruling means no extension and notice is untimely | Held: Without a timely 306a finding, the notice of appeal (filed 88 days after judgment) was untimely; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether a sworn 306a motion may be filed after the trial court’s plenary power expires | Appellant contends he may still obtain a 306a determination | Appellee contends 306a motion must be filed while trial court retains plenary power as measured from date of notice | Held: Rule 306a motion must be filed before the trial court’s plenary power expires; appellant’s motion was filed too late |
| Effect of prison-mailbox rule on filing dates for prisoner litigants | Appellant relies on the prison-mailbox rule to date his filings | Appellee accepts filed dates but emphasizes substantive 306a timing requirement | Held: Prison-mailbox rule governs filing dates, but it does not cure failure to timely file a Rule 306a motion required to extend appellate timetables |
Key Cases Cited
- Mem'l Hosp. of Galveston County v. Gillis, 741 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. 1987) (Rule 306a requirements are jurisdictional for reinstating causes)
- In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2006) (sworn 306a motion can reinvoke limited trial-court jurisdiction to determine date of notice)
- Florance v. State, 352 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (discussing limited evidentiary hearing under Rule 306a)
- Grondoma v. Sutton, 991 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (failure to timely file 306a motion precludes extension of appellate deadlines)
- John v. Marshall Health Servs., Inc., 58 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2001) (306a motion must be filed before trial court jurisdiction expires)
- Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2007) (prison-mailbox rule: pro se prisoner filings are deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (same as Ramos on prisoner filing date rule)
- Plains Growers, Inc. v. Jordan, 519 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. 1974) (clerk's failure to mail notice does not void judgment)