Jose George, Matilde George, and Elaine George v. Compass Bank, 04-15-00676-CV

Background

Compass Bank obtained partial summary judgment against Jose, Matilde, and Elaine George on July 30, 2015, and the trial court simultaneously signed an order severing all claims between Compass Bank and the Georges into a new cause (Cause No. 2015-CI-12375) and declared that severed judgment final and appealable.
The severance order directed the clerk to place the summary-judgment and related orders into the new severed case file; the district clerk and counsel received notice of the severance.
Appellants (the Georges) filed a notice of appeal on October 27, 2015 in the original/main case (Cause No. 2014-CI-03773), attempting to appeal the July 30, 2015 judgment and a subsequent September 24, 2015 order.
Appellants did not file any post-judgment motion or a notice of appeal in the severed case (Cause No. 2015-CI-12375) within the 30-day deadline required to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
Compass Bank moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the timely filing requirement was not met in the severed case and that filing a post-judgment motion in the wrong case does not extend the appellate timetable under controlling precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction when appellant filed post-judgment filings in the original case rather than the severed, final case	The Georges argue their October 27, 2015 notice of appeal in the main case invoked appellate jurisdiction over the July 30 orders	Compass Bank argues the final, appealable judgment was in the severed case and no timely post-judgment motion or notice of appeal was filed in that severed cause, so appellate jurisdiction is lacking	The court lacks jurisdiction; because the severed judgment was final and no timely filings were made in the severed cause, the appeal must be dismissed.
Whether a motion filed in the wrong cause extends the trial court's plenary power or appellate timeline	Georges implicitly contend their post-judgment motion in the main case should extend deadlines or be treated as an effort to invoke jurisdiction	Compass Bank relies on Philbrook and later cases to contend a motion filed in the wrong cause does not extend plenary power or the appellate deadline	Held for Compass Bank: a post-judgment motion filed in the wrong cause does not extend the trial court's plenary power or the appellate deadline.
Whether a filing that misidentifies the cause number can be treated as a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction	Georges point to their filings in the related main case and argue the filing should be treated as a jurisdiction-invoking attempt	Compass Bank contends no timely bona fide attempt (e.g., timely notice of appeal) was made in the severed cause, and under In re K.A.F. a motion for new trial is not a substitute for a notice of appeal	Held for Compass Bank: no timely bona fide attempt to invoke jurisdiction existed in the severed cause; a motion for new trial cannot substitute for a timely notice of appeal.
Whether precedents that favored substance over form require a different result	Georges rely on cases where clerical or systemic confusion excused misfiling	Compass Bank distinguishes those cases (where severance was ignored or new cause number did not exist or clerk error occurred) because here the severance and new cause number were effective and known to parties	Held for Compass Bank: distinguishing facts control; where severance and notice existed, those precedents do not save an untimely appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Philbrook v. Berry, 683 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1985) (motion filed in wrong cause does not extend plenary power or appellate deadlines)
City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 828 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. 1992) (a timely, bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction can suffice despite clerical errors in cause number)
Mueller v. Saravia, 826 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. 1992) (post-judgment motion filed in original cause extended appellate deadline where severance and record were effectively ignored)
McRoberts v. Ryals, 863 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1993) (severed cause number assigned later; timely motion under original cause was appropriate)
Blankenship v. Robbins, 878 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1994) (party not penalized where clerk and court actions contradicted severance order and party filed according to clerk)
In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (motion for new trial is not a substitute for a notice of appeal for invoking appellate jurisdiction)