Malone v. PLH Grp., Inc.
570 S.W.3d 292
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Thomas Malone sued Power Line Services and related entity PLH Group after his termination, seeking severance under his employment contract; defendants counterclaimed.
- A two-day bench trial was held; District Judge Caroline Baker presided and heard all contested evidence.
- Five months later, while Judge Baker remained the presiding judge, Judge John T. Woolridge (who heard no evidence) signed a final take-nothing judgment and later issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Malone challenged the judgment as improperly rendered by a judge who did not hear the evidence and raised additional merits issues; Power Line Services sought equitable relief and defended the judgment.
- The court concluded the judgment and findings issued by the judge who heard no evidence were void because the presiding trial judge is the factfinder in a bench trial; the appellate court therefore held it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits and remanded the case, dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge who did not hear the bench trial may sign the final judgment and findings | Malone: Judge Woolridge lacked authority; Judge Baker presided and only she could render judgment/findings | Power Line: Baker rendered an oral ruling earlier; Woolridge's signing was ministerial | Held: Woolridge's judgment and findings are void; rendition occurred when Woolridge signed; ministerial claim insufficient |
| Whether a judgment entered by a judge who heard no evidence is void or merely reversible error | Malone: Error requiring reversal | Power Line: Should be treated as regular reversible error subject to appeal | Held: Void; appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide merits of appeals from void judgments |
| Whether Appellate Rule 27.2 abates the appeal instead of dismissal | Malone: N/A | Power Line: Appeal may be abated/record supplemented under Rule 27.2 | Held: Rule 27.2 inapplicable because it addresses nonfinal valid orders; void judgments cannot be ratified |
| Whether findings of fact issued by a judge who did not preside are effective | Malone: Findings void; not required to preserve error | Power Line: N/A | Held: Findings of fact issued by Woolridge are void; only the judge who heard evidence may file fact findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Masa Custom Homes, LLC v. Shahin, 547 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2018) (judge who heard no evidence lacked authority to render judgment; such judgments void)
- W.C. Banks, Inc. v. Team, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (holding a judge who heard none of the evidence cannot render judgment)
- Hull v. S. Coast Catamarans, L.P., 365 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (same principle: judge who heard none of case not authorized to render judgment)
- Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2012) (appellate courts must consider their jurisdiction sua sponte and lack jurisdiction to address merits of appeals from void judgments)
- Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. 2017) (only the judge who presided over bench trial has authority to file findings of fact; successor judge's findings void)
- Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) (appellate courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
- Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. 1932) (void judgments are "entirely null" and not susceptible of ratification)