Rodger A. Weiss v. Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C., 14-19-00849-CV

In 2008 a default judgment was entered against Rodger Weiss in a Harris County justice court. Nine years later Weiss filed a bill of review in the justice court claiming he was never served; the justice court denied relief and Weiss appealed de novo to County Civil Court at Law No. 4.
A bench hearing began May 28, 2019; Judge George Barnstone (sitting for the absent presiding judge Lesley Briones) presided over the initial proceedings. On July 17, 2019 the trial court signed an order granting Weiss’s bill of review (an interlocutory order with a Mother Hubbard clause).
Eichner filed a “motion for new trial” (functionally a motion to reconsider the interlocutory grant). On September 25, 2019 Judge Briones signed an order withdrawing the July 17 order, denying Weiss’s bill of review, awarding fees to Eichner, and entering a final judgment that Weiss take nothing.
Weiss appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked authority to reconsider and enter judgment and (2) the final judgment was void because Judge Briones did not personally hear the bench-trial evidence on which she purported to rely.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held the court had authority to reconsider the interlocutory order but concluded Judge Briones had no authority to render judgment based on evidence she had not personally heard; the final judgment was void. The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the final judgment is void because the presiding judge (Briones) did not personally hear the bench-trial evidence	Weiss: Briones had no authority to render judgment because she did not hear the evidence and a judge who did not hear a bench trial cannot later render judgment	Eichner: Briones could properly rule on the motion for new trial / reconsideration and render judgment (not a successor-judge issue)	Held: Judgment was void—judge may not render a bench-trial judgment based on evidence she did not personally hear; judgment reversed and remanded
Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial without hearing evidence	Weiss: Granting a new trial/reconsideration without observing witnesses was improper and should be void	Eichner: The filing was a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order; the court retained authority to set aside interlocutory orders and had discretion to do so	Held: No error in granting reconsideration of the interlocutory bill-of-review order; trial court had continuing power over interlocutory orders

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (Mother Hubbard clause in an order without a full trial is insufficient to establish finality)
Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. 2004) (procedure for bill of review when lack of service is asserted)
PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (bill of review limitations and tolling for extrinsic fraud)
Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. 2017) (action is void when judge lacked authority to take it)
Masa Custom Homes, LLC v. Shahin, 547 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018) (a judge who did not hear bench-trial evidence may not later render judgment)
Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1993) (trial court retains continuing control over interlocutory orders)
Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) (elements and equitable nature of bill of review)