Juan J. Villarreal v. Roberto Jimenez
04-15-00544-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Juan J. Villarreal appealed a final judgment signed June 11, 2015, which set aside certificates of title.
- On June 1, 2015 Villarreal filed a motion for reconsideration challenging an affirmative defense; the trial court treated it as a motion for new trial.
- A hearing on the motion occurred June 23, 2015, and the trial court orally granted a new trial, but no written, signed order granting a new trial was entered.
- Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 1, 2015. Appellee Roberto Jimenez moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing the notice was untimely.
- The appellate court considered whether the premature motion for reconsideration/new trial extended the appellate timetable and whether the oral grant was sufficient.
- The court concluded the oral pronouncement did not constitute a signed order granting a new trial, but the premature motion nonetheless extended the time to file a notice of appeal; appellant’s notice was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Villarreal) | Defendant's Argument (Jimenez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court granted a new trial | Trial court granted motion for new trial at hearing, extending time to appeal | No written signed order was entered, so no new trial was granted | Oral pronouncement insufficient; no signed order granted a new trial |
| Whether a prematurely filed motion for reconsideration/new trial extends appellate deadlines | Villarreal argued his motion was filed and should be treated as extending the appellate timetable | Jimenez argued no new trial was granted so appellate timetable not extended | Premature motion is treated as filed after judgment and extends appellate timetable |
| Whether the notice of appeal was timely | Villarreal argued his notice was within the extended period (due 90 days after judgment) | Jimenez argued the notice was untimely because no valid new trial order existed | Notice filed Sept 1, 2015 was timely (due Sept 9 under the extension), so appeal retained jurisdiction |
| Whether appellate court should dismiss for want of jurisdiction | Villarreal argued dismissal not warranted because notice timely under extension | Jimenez asked dismissal because alleged untimely notice | Motion to dismiss denied; appellate jurisdiction retained |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lovito-Nelson, 278 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. 2009) (Rule 329b(c) requires a written, signed order to grant a new trial)
- Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2005) (premature motions can be treated as filed after judgment to extend appellate deadlines)
- South Tex. GMAC Real Estate v. Cohyco, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003) (no pet.) (same principle treating pre-judgment motions as relating back to extend appellate timetable)