Sultan v. Mathew

SULTAN, Cаrpet Yusuf U.S. d/b/a Floors, Petitioner MATHEW, Respondent.

Savio

No. 03-0831.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. Anderson, Ryan Kir- M.

Timothy Collins Anderson, Timothy Firm of C. by, Law Houston, PLLC, for Petitioner. Mathew, City, pro Missouri se. Savio JEFFERSON delivered Chief Justice Court, opinion of in which Justice GREEN, O’NEILL, Justice Justice JOHNSON, Justice SIMMONS1 Simmons, Justice, Perry, Governor of Hon. Rick the Court commission 1. Hon. Rebecca District, sitting by Appeals Fourth (assigned) and Justice GAULTNEY2 the court appeals concluded that (assigned) join. it did not have and dismissed the appeal. 2003 grant- WL 1738864. We In this we determine whether ed petition Sultan’s for review to deter- appeals courts of have to hear mine whether juris- courts judgments county courts diction over judgments of county courts or county following courts law a de novo county courts following at law dea novo appeal from small claims court. The appeal from a small claims court. 47 Tex. Harris Civil Court at Law No. 12, 2004). Sup.Ct. (Apr. J. 417 rendered default judgment against Yusuf (“Sultan”) Sultan Carpet U.S. d/b/a II Floors after to appear Sultan failed for trial. Sultan appealed to the Fourteenth Discussion Appeals, Court of which dismissed Sultan’s party A dissatisfied with a small appeal want based on claims judgment may appeal 28.053(d) section of the Texas Government county county court or court at law Code.3 2003 WL 1738864. Because we de novo trial if the amount in agree that of appeals do not have exceeds Tex. Gov’t $20. jurisdiction over cases originally filed in 28.052(a), 28.053(b). §§ The Texas Gov small claims we affirm the court of provides “[jjudgment ernment Code that a appeals’ judgment. county county court or court at law on appeal [from the small claims court]

I 28.053(d) Id. (emphasis final.” add ed). Background question The here is whether the 28.053(d) word “final” in section means (“Mathew”) Savio Mathew sued Sultan appealable final final not ap- in small damages claims court for resulting pealable. from the installation of a laminate floor Mathew’s homе. The small claims court Before several courts held that a awarded Mathew Sultan county filed court’s or court at law’s an appeal for a de novo trial Harris appeal de novo from small County Civil Court at Law No. See Tex. appealed court could be to the court 28.053(b). 28.052(a), §§ Gov’t Code See, Atrial of appeals. e.g., & Moving Galil Stor Sultan; set and notice age, was sent to Inc. v. McGregor, 928 however, allegedly because Sultan did not (Tex.App.-San pet.); Antonio Sa notice, Ellis, receive the trial not appear. he did blatura v.

Consequently, rendered a (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] against pet.); ap- default him. Sultan al., see also Alan Wright et Appel pealed Citing the court of late appeals. Procedure, Practice and 54 SMU 28.053(d) section (2001). Government Texas L.Rev. howev Texas, pursuant to Section 22.005 of provides the Tex- The statute "[fludgment that a as Government Code. court or court at law on the [from court] final." Justice, Gaultney, Hon. David the Court ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍of 28.053(d) added). (emphasis Tex. Gov't Code District, Appeals sitting by for the Ninth com- Perry, mission of Rick Hon. Governor of Tex- as, pursuant to Section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code. tions, er, declared that decision held that Appeals the First Court of trying the contest judge “final” meant word district district, beyond “that there is no further all be “final as to should law.” county court court at municipal offices.” precinct, or (Tex. Covert, 301, 302 Davis v. 983 S.W.2d quoted was purpose of the clause plain 1998, App.-Houston pet. dism’d [1st Dist.] to the deny appellate Sablatura, w.o.j.) (overruling 753 S.W.2d contested Appeals Courts Civil over 521). holding The Davis has since been involved. of the character here elections by appeals. followed most Texas courts of Matagorda Corp. Oil v. Id. at 45.In Mobil See, 410, Valdez, e.g., Oropeza v. 53 S.W.3d 3, Drainage No. 597 S.W.2d Dist. 2001, 412 pet.); Antonio no (Tex.App.-San (Tex.1980), oрposite we reached the 910 Plumbing Co. 47 Rodgers, Woodlands v. case, that we reviewed sec conclusion. In 146, (Tex.App.-Texarkana 148 S.W.3d tion 56.082 of the Texas Water denied); 2001, pet. Howell Servs. Aviation gives which the commissioners exclu Ads, Inc., 321, v. Aerial 29 323 S.W.3d proceedings sive over certain 2000, no (Tex.App.-Dallas pet.); William drainage provides relating districts 731, Serv., son v. A-1 Elec. Auto that the commissioners court’s 2000, (Tex.App.-Corpus pet. Christi (con at 911 on such issues “is final.” Id. Rowe, w.o.j.); dism’d v. 3 Lederman 56.082). We struing Tex. Water Code (Tex.App.-Waco no S.W.3d legislature concluded that did “[t]he Enters., Inc., pet.); Sneaky v. Gaskill ‘final’ section by using intend term 296, 297 (Tex.App.-Fort S.W.2d Worth all prevent 56.082to review of commission denied); Automania, 1999, pet. L.L.C. v. orders,” held and we therefore ers court 03-03-00592-CV, No. May, 2004 WL annexing that commissioners court orders (Tex.App.-Austin no April sub territory drainage districts were pet.) (mem.op.); Vaughan, Martin v. No. ject district court. Id. to review (Tex. 11-02-00133-CV, 2003 WL 22741155 Nov.20, 2003, App.-Eastlаnd pet.) both Mobil Oil and Seale While (mem.op.); Injury Townsend v. Accidental they are instructive that address similar Ctr., 07-99-0073-CV, Treatment No. insight direct language, neither case offers Feb.9, (TexApp.-Amarillo WL 157900 using into Legislature’s intent (not pet.) designated for publica 28.053(d). “final” in word section When tion). statute, objec construing primary “[o]ur give tive effect ... to ascertain

Although we never ad specifically have Dep’t Legislature’s intent.” finality language dressed the section City Valley, Sunset Transp. 28.053(d), we twice considered similar (Tex.2004). To discern S.W.3d In language in other statutes. Seale intent, objective the that (Tex. we consider McCollum, 116 Tex. 287 S.W. 45 consequences law seeks obtain and the 1926), declaring that we held a statute Tex. Gov’t particular construction. an the district court’s election 311.023(1), (5); City see also appellate “final” re Code precluded contest was Valley, We of election contests the courts Sunset view civil as a whole appeals. We stated: must consider statute that is con give meaning language The election contest was instituted provisions. City sistent with its other provisions of Revised tried under (1925), which, Apply Valley, Sunset S.W.3d at art. while Statutes conclude ing principles, elec- we primary contest of these providing 28.053(d) declaring in section the context of other small “judgment provisions, claims court all which under- final,” court at law Legislature Legislature’s goal pro- in- score the basic prohibit viding simplified inexpensive tended to to the courts of procedure, it is appeals. reasonable to conclude that Legislature created the 28.053(d), in- provide claims court to an affordable forgo tended to the added time and ex- and expedient procedure for litigating pense inevitably accompany ap- involving relatively small amounts peal appeals.5 to the court of of money.4 Act of May 53rd 1953 Tex. Gen. Oil, rejected Mobil Matagorda we Laws (creating small claims court County’s contention the word “final” noting and many “[t]he fact that of citizens in section 56.082 of the Texas Water Code of State Texas are now in effect reviewable,” denied reasoning meant “not that the the present expense because of Legislature and prevent did not intend to all delay litigation of when their in- review of commissioners court an orders volve small of money; nexing sums and fur- territory drainage See districts. ther Here, fact that the Mobil Oil discouragement litiga- of 597 S.W.2d at 911. Corp., 28.053(d) however, tion based on we ability financial is note section contrary incorporates a form of State”); appellate to the review. public policy of this see also Legislature specifically The Sanders, Jr., provided has O.L. The Small Claims that a party dissatisfied can obtain Court, review 1 S. Tex. L.J. a judgment by ap of small claims court (“Viewing the Small Claims Court Act as a pealing to the whole, it must be concluded that main at law for a de trial. novo object and of purpose place the law was to 28.053(b). 28.052(a), Thus, §§ in sec reach many within the of Texas 28.053(d) tion intended citizens, previously who were such denied prevent all review of a small claims relief litigation because expense court judgment, but rather to limit the claim.”). delay overshadowed their small extent of review thereby minimize the This basic is purpose reflected in almost “expense and of delay litigation.” See Act every aspect small claims court proce- May 27, 1953, 53rd For example, dure. institution a 17, 1953 Tex. Gen. Laws small claims requires action little more than completing a one-page form. See contends that Sultan because 28.012(b). hearing Gov’t Code The judgment” required appeal, “final is for an “informal, objective with the being sole interpret we cannot the word “final” to dispense speedy justice between the 28.053(d) prohibiting review 28.033(d). parties.” Id. On appeal, the Oil, appeals. the court Mobil we dispose court must claim final, judgment, though reasoned that “[a] “with speed.” all convenient Id. may yet be one that is It is reviewable. 28.053(a). construing finality When section the which makes The small claims court’s limit to the courts of in- are much more (he 28.003(a). $5000. See Tex. Gov’t Code among require appellant, volved things, pay production example, appealing a county For TexR.App. reporter’s clerk's and P. records. requires only appellant that the file an Additionally, parties 35.3. both must submit appeal. bond notice See Tex. Gov’t TexR.App. 38.1, formal P. 38.2. briefs. 28.052(b); §Code Appeals TexR. Crv.P. 571. court did not sever cause utory at 911. where trial subject for review.” 597 S.W.2d Walter, 414 rule, Warren v. Granted, against hospital); ... general “the under (Tex.1967) (judgment set only a final S.W.2d may be taken granting default ting aside Corp., Lehmann v. judgment.” Har-Con (Tex.2001). interlocutory); Em new trial was But “the S.W.3d Office Int’l Local 277 South ‘final,’ judgments, ployees applied term Union 404, 406 Drug Corp., 391 S.W.2d meaning.” western more than one Street v. Honor- (order (Tex.1965) depositions authorizing Appeals, able Second Court S.W.2d (Tex.1988). Nat’l Bank interlocutory); Citizens Indeed: Callaway, Beaumont judgment’ term ‘final differ- applies 1980, writ (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont ently A different contexts. (order d) in arbitration was compelling ref appellate juris- ‘final’ purposes Therefore, we read section terlocutory). if it all disposes diction issues and that a final mean judg- in a term ‘final parties case. The appealable. court is not from the also with ment’ is used reference appellate power when trial or time Furthermore, to construe section ends, judgment to alter the or when the 28.053(d) appealable” to mean “final and judgment operative the pur- becomes for section be redundant. Absent would judicata. poses of res 28.053(d), appeals an to the court McWilliams, (citing Id. v. McWilliams in small claims cases be allowed would (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 393-94 S.W.2d controversy in exceeds the amount where ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍1975, writ)). [14th Dist.] 22.220(a) Tex. Gov’t Code $100. 28.053(d) Interpreting appeals “final” in courts of (granting section in district courts or to mean “final for over cases which “the purposes appeals” courts have when would construe every controversy judgment to mean that a in judgment statute amount $100, of inter concerning a small claims exclusive rendered exceeds costs”); Prac. & Rem. appealable. matter is This Tex. Civ. interpretation est ignores (allowing to the interlocutory judgments. appeals be To in “the judgment appeals for civil cases where purposes appeal, final a courts of ex dispose a parties judgment must of all issues and amount Id. of interest fact-specific case. at 301. Such a de ceeds exclusive costs”). Thus, court’s case-by-case is made on a ba to allow termination Lehmann, (not small claims case to sis. See at 195 a S.W.3d Leg judicial appeals, courts of ing appealed that “whether decree is specifically need not declare final must be determined from islature case.”). final court is language its and the record avoid, must when We many appealable. instances in which a There are treating language interlocutory ap- “judgment” possible, See, Ins. v. Func e.g., surplusage. Cont'l Cas. Co. pealable appeals. to the court Assocs., Wilson, v. Restoration 19 S.W.3d Parking Am. 58 S.W.3d tional Co. of (Tex.2000). (Tex.2001) interpretation is also summary judg Our (partial specific that a stat dispose principle of all claims guided ment that did not Jorns, general one. Co “clearly interlocutory”); ute controls over more Webb (Tex.1973) (order Moore, Hosp. Corp. v. 92 S.W.3d lumbia (Tex.2002). 28.053, Here, hospital from suit was interloc dismissing applies only to civil cases al originating overlap, illogical it is for Legislature court, in small claims controls over section appeals to allow to the of appeals courts 22.220, which applies to “all civil cases.” claims initiated in 22.220(a) 28.053(a), §§ Gov’t Code not for claims initiated in a small claims added). (emphasis See, Covert, e.g., court. Davis v. S.W.2d 303 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st argues Sultan also deny him 1998, pet. w.o.j.); dism’d Dist.] Howell opportunity to appeal to the courts of Ads, Inc., Aviation Servs. v. Aerial appeals violates the Texas Constitution’s (Tex.App.-Dallas Const, open provision. See Tex. pet.). I, § art. disagree. 13. We Under the Constitution, Texas the courts of agree We do not that the difference have over “all cases which illogical. contrary, To the it would seem District Courts or Courts have illogical Legislature for the created original or appellate jurisdiction, under the small claims if the small claims such and regulations restrictions court was intended to be identical in all prescribed V, § Id. law.” art. 6 respects As court. we have added). (emphasis As we stated Seale mentioned, creating McCollum, 116 Tex. 287 S.W. 47 court, sought provide (1926), principle “the Leg is fixed that the litiga accessible and affordable forum power right islature to limit the merely tion. The limitation on ” appeal.... By declaring in section one of several measures intended to facili that the goal. tate this if the be Even difference court or appeal court at law on an justice tween court and small claims “final,” from the small claims court is illogical, problem court were “the [would Legislature exercised its constitutional legislative, judicial be] one for not solu power to jurisdiction restrict of the Jackson, tion.” State v. appeals.6

courts of (Tex.1964); Corp. see also Enron Dist., Spring Indep. Sch. Finаlly, recognize we there is a (“The (Tex.1996) expedien wisdom or justice difference between the court and cy a law for to is deter respect a party’s claims court with to Court.”). mine, not this ability appeal to to appeals. the court of 28.003(a) Under section of the Gov- Texas Code,

ernment small claims courts have Ill jurisdiction justice concurrent with the Conclusion involving courts in actions amounts not exceeding Tex. Gov’t Code hold $5000. that under section We 28.003(a). Nonetheless, there stat- the Texas Government the courts ute restricting right appeal to to appeals jurisdiction origi- lack over cases appeals courts of originating nally cases filed in the small court. claims Ac- justice A courts. few cordingly, courts of affirm we that, given jurisdiction- have dismissing reasoned this court of appeals Sultan’s Although argument process right appellate Sultan bases his on the that there is no due Constitution, review); Bacarisse, we note Texas also that the Unit F.3d Able (5th ed guarantee Cir.1998)(noting right States Constitution does that "the Michalson, right appeal. statutory right, See Doleac v. is a not a constitutional (5th Cir.2001)(holding right”). F.3d why appeals’ the court Tex.R.App. plicated, and jurisdiction. for want 60.2(a). where, depend on P. should jurisdic- trial all with

among several tion, it dissenting filed a filed and whether Justice HECHT the case was first opinion, in which Justice WAINWRIGHT Why, indeed. was transferred. join. MEDINA

and Justice fairness, trying Court is In all HECHT, ambigu- joined by half-century-old Justice a Justice make sense of MEDINA, jurisdictional WAINWRIGHT and Justice of a part ous statute that elaborate, dissenting. gone scheme that has enacted, to Byzan- was when the statute structure the Texas a Today’s complex simple tine. answer system unimaginably abstruse. question not much worsen matters does case, example this which raises Take we already shape. But that are terrible might relatively what one think would be а opportunity presented are with the seldom $4,000 question: a simple Can give jurisdictional statute reasonable damage caused instal- flooring home in more uniformi- construction that results appealed appeals? lation (even ty only slightly if simplicity yes, if Here is the Court’s answer: more), in this given opportunity court, judgment was rendered a district case, I it. Since would seize by county court1 or a coun- successor, the court of civil and its ty in a originated court2 case had over appeals, court of jus- was transferred3 to that court from a I involving more than $100.4 civil case court, tice court or small was de- would hold that does not appealed from a court in a case that in the pend on where the first there or originated was transferred there rendered —whether the small court, no, from the if small claims court, court, statuto- by county was rendered court, ry county or the statutory county apрealed court in a case (To I keep things simple, might from a small claims court. district court. One why statutory probate wonder the should eom- leave courts answer be so would 21.009(1) (" juris- § it within 'County Tex. not be transferred unless the Code Gov’t court’ means court created in each of the court to which it is transferred. diction V, judges those courts within a Article Section of the Texas Consti- of tution.”). may exchange and with benches courtrooms disabled, absent, other that if one is each so disqualified, may court for 21.009(2) other hold (" ‘Statutory county § 2. court' Id. necessity transferring the him without the of legisla- court created means judge may any part V, Either hear all case. Article of ture under Section the Texas may Constitution, pending of rule and a case and including county at courts law continue, determine, or ....”). orders on and enter ... and at law civil courts part case on all or of the render transferring necessity it to his without the оf 74.121(a) (“The § judges of Id. constitution- judge may in a own docket. A not sit act courts, courts, statutory county jus- al jurisdiction of his unless it is within the courts, tice and small claims courts in a coun- court.”). ty may transfer cases to and from the dockets courts, respective except their a case Safety, Dep’t 23 v. Texas Pub. may one court to 4.See Tune transferred from (Tex.2000); id. 364- judge without consent another J., (Hecht, concurring). court to which it is transferred and day.5) Accordingly, another I respectfully with the monetary same limits as coun- dissent. courts; ty justice court, and the with ex- jurisdiction up clusive of claims to $200.9 it, As I principal see error court, The Act created fifth the small analysis Court’s is that it not pay does court, claims judges; new each proper attention to the context justice of peace addition to being we language have to construe judge justice of the court was made also jurisdictional ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍written and the schеme judge the small court.10 claims Not- of which it is a part. The Claims Small justice withstanding the court’s constitu- Court Act was enacted in tionally jurisdiction “exclusive” of claims since been recodified and amended.6 In $200,11 up small claims court was jurisdiction four trial had courts over given jurisdiction up money wage claims for damages: the district monetary with minimum up $100 limit $500;7 Thus, court in each county, $50.12 claims court and jurisdiction with of claims involving jurisdiction be- had concurrent $1,000;8 tween claims, $200 additional over the smallest and the same (18 statutory county counties), in 13 them, peace heard whether V, ("Justices (1876) § art. Const, Tex. Gov’t 9. Tex chapter subchapter B. jurisdiction the Peace shall have ... in civil matters of all cases where the amount less, 27, 1953, R.S., controversy May 6. Act is two hundred dollars or Leg., 53rd interest, origi- exclusive of of which formerly 1953 Tex. Laws exclusive Gen. 2460a, jurisdiction given nal is not to the District or Stat. Ann. art. now recodified Rev.Civ ....”). amended, County Courts May ofAct 69th ch. 480 1985 Tеx. Gen. Laws 1720, 1814-1817, 2460a, ("The as Tex. Gov’t 10. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. Code §§ justices 28.001-055. peace of the in their several counties precincts judges sit as of said courts shall V, (1876) ("The hereby and exercise the art. conferred District 7. Tex. Const. arising provisions in all cases under the original Court shall have ... of Chapter.’’), this all now recodified suits ... when the matter in ("Each justice peace sits shall be valued at or amount to five hundred ....’’). judge of the small claims court and exercis- dollars exclusive of interest jurisdiction provided by chapter.”). es the this V, (1876) (“The art. Coun- Const, 8. Tex. Stewart, ty Harris 91 Tex. shall ... exclusive V, (holding S.W. that article all civil cases when matter in contro- Constitution, $200, 1 of the amended in versy shall exceed value in and not $500, interest, may legislature 1891 to state that es- "[t]he exceed exclusive and con- may tablish such it other courts as deem current with the District Courts necessary prescribe and the and when the matter in shall exceed thereof, $1,000, оrganization may and the conform not and exceed exclusive of ....”); of the district and other inferior interest Stat. Ann. arts. Tex.Rev.Civ. thereto”, permits courts the creation of new (reiterating 1949-1951 the constitu- notwithstanding juris- constitutional provisions excluding tional types and certain grants). cases); dictional of civil arts. Ann. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. (Vernon 1948, Supp. 1970-1 to 1970-341 1950, 1952, 1954) 27, 1953, (providing May 18 Leg., addi- 12. Act of ch. 53rd R.S. counties, 2, 778, tional § courts at law in 13 the first Tex. Gen. Laws 1963, 9, County, first in in by May Leg., created Dallas all amended Act of 58th 2, (Tex. having § the same limits mon- ch. 368 Tex. Laws Gen. etary court). 2460a, 2). § claims the Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. justice in covery justice permitted court or as sitting judge the court,18 expressly permitted it was not judge of the small claims court. Neither while courts, it jurisdiction overlapped that in court’s of the first small now.19 court, be- Perhaps significant most difference statutory county the the admo- two courts was the Act’s or the district court. tween the nition, justice court, in that: inapрlicable Act, purpose according The of the to In the Small Claims every before to address fact Legislature, “[t]he Court, judge duty of the it shall be many citizens of the State of Texas are all in the develop particu- of the facts justice in effect denied now because duty, this lar exercise of case. delay of present expense litigation any judge may any question of propound their claims when involve small sums his party upon witness or suit it is doubtful whether the money”,13 may party own motion summon adjudication Act did much to facilitate the as, in suit appear as witness already by being handled judge, appears neces- discretion of the justices peace jus- the same sary to effect a correct The prescribed proce- tice courts.14 Act dispose such case.20 speedily dures that are less extensive than the rules that, justice holding is in applicable appreci- courts but not This contrast cases a wit- simpler although judge may a trial examine ably actual For ex- practice.15 trial, judge ample, permits during the Act an action to be ness a bench trial who are tes- filing simple, commenced sworn state- should not examine witnesses may A jury trial permit pleadings, tifying but does not oral before jury.21 ment,16 which are standard in Dis- demanded either court.22 court.17 27, 2460a, 4, 1953, R.S., Leg., May 13. Act of ch. Ann. art. 53rd 16. TexRev.Civ. Stat. 1953 Tex. Gen. 780. amended and recodified as Tex. Gov’t Code Laws § 28.012. Stoller, 14. See Bernard M. Small Claims 17. Civ. P. 525. TexR. Lost, Courts in 47 Tex. Texas: Paradise L.Rev. (1969)("The promise made P. 523. TexR. Civ. legislature citizens Texas in 1953 has fulfilled.”); Sanders, Jr., not been O.L. 28.033(e), Act added Tex Court, S. L.J. Small Claims May 71st (1954) (concluding small claims Laws 1989 Tex. Gen. separated "is doomed to failure” if not court); Cunningham, James D. 2460a, 9,§ reco- art. TexRev.Civ. Ann. Stat. Act, Small Court 17 Tex. B.J. Claims ("The judge dified as Gov’t Code (1954)("[E]xcept for the smaller fil- case, develop and for shall the facts of ing simply fеe the Small Claims Court is party question purpose may a witness or again.... Justice over Act does [T]he Court any party appear as summon guarantee parties engaged Small necessary judge to a witness as the considers litigation quick, in Texas a eco- Claims disposition speedy judgment and correct nomical, accurate and final determination of case.”). by judges possessing the their lawsuits neces- sary qualifications important posi- for such an Farms, E.g., v. S.W.2d Pitt 843 21. Bradford tion.”). 1992, 705, (Tex.App.-Corpus 708 Christi no pet.). 2460a, Compare art. 15. Stat. Tex.Rev.Civ. Ann. 11, 2460a, 3-4, 6-11, § re- §§ and as Tex art. amended recodified 22. TexRev.Civ. Ann. Stat. (small § §§ 28.035 (applicable in codified as Tex Gov’t Code 28.011-051 Gov't Code court), courts); (justice P. 544 small claims with TexR. P. 523- Civ. TexR. Civ. courts). courts). injustice (applicable 570 756 jurisdictional

The up structure of the trial but upper monetary limit $20029 changed courts has markedly since 1953. jurisdiction of its has been increased by The Constitution has beеn amended $5,000, statute to exclusive of interest.30 omit a monetary minimum limit on the The jurisdiction small claims court also has jurisdiction,23 district court’s and whether monetary $5,000, of all up exclu any such limit remains is unresolved sive of many costs.31 For individual question.24 The Constitution has also been courts, jurisdiction statutes limit or extend monetary amended to omit on the limits subject based on matter cases. jurisdiction.25 court’s now Limits Also, county statutory court judges, prescribed by generally statute are from judges, justices peace judges as $5,000,26 up to but at least $200 one courts, justices peace and of the jurisdiction court has no civil at all.27 judges as of the may, small claims courts Monetary jurisdictional limits on discretion, within their transfer cases to generally courts are from $500 one another if the transferred case with $100,000,28 they vary widely coun jurisdiction, the transferee court’s and ty county, many such courts have any sit for monetary no limits. one another on case over which court re jurisdiction tains “exclusive” sitting judge jurisdiction over claims would have V, (“District Wood, curiam); 23. (per § art. compare Const, Le Clair v. No. Tex. exclusive, 10-04-00232-CV, 1303187, jurisdiction consists of appellate, 2005 WL at *2 actions, 1, original jurisdiction pro- (Tex.App.-Waco of all pet. no June remedies, ceedings, except h.)(mem.op.), Chapa cases Spivey, where v. exclusive, appellate, original jurisdiction (Tex.App.-Tyler S.W.2d 835-36 curiam) this pet.) (per (determining conferred Constitution or oth- that the mini court, tribunal, er law on jurisdictional some other or ad- mum amount for district courts body.”). amendment), ministrative $500 still even with the 1985 Jackson, (Tex. Arteaga with v. 994 S.W.2d 342 Co., Equip. 24. See Peek v. Serv. 779 S.W.2d denied), App.-Texarkana pet. and Ar (Tex.1989) (“The 803-804 n. minimum Co., nold W.Bend monetary formerly limit was found in article Dist.j 1998, (Tex.App.-Houston pet.) [1st V, Texas Constitution (noting new minimum article 1906 of the Texas Revised Civil Stat- $200.01). equal for district jurisdiction Both utes. limited the the dis- involving trict court to controversies at least V, ("The § County Tex. art. Const, 1985, however, $500.00. provision this law.”). jurisdiction provided by Court has constitution was amended to delete monetary reference to jurisdic- the minimum § 26.042. 26. Tex. Gov’t Code tion of the district court. inAlso article repealed 1906 was and recodified with the See, ("The e.g., § 26.321 27. Tex Code enactment of the Government Code. In there Taylor County gener- Court of has the codification legislature of article probate juvenile al of a court and specific description deleted the of district 26.042(b) provided Section jurisdiction, including the minimum jurisdic- but has no criminal civil monetary $500.00. limit Tex. Gov.Code tion.”). (Vernon 1988). § One commen- Ann. suggested $500.00 that a tator minimum 25.003(c)(1). Gov’t Code remains limitation on the despite district courts its removal from the V, art. Const, constitution and statute. W. Dorsaneo, Litigation 2.01[3][b][ii] Texas Guide (1989).”); Kazi, 27.031(a)(1). Co. Dubai Petroleum 30. Tex. Gov't (Tex.2000); Clary S.W.3d 75 n. Smith v. (Tex.1996) 28.003(a). Corp., 917 n. 3 31. Tex. Gov't Code that the judgment. agree I to I with the Court begin his her court.32 cannot or own a false meaning of makes section 13 describe detail the Texas first My point merely judg- trial here to it is possible courts. is because statement monetary jurisdic county court county how limits and the of court or show ments among interlocutory. example, boundaries trial courts have For a tional at law be past century. might half two defendants and changed plaintiff sue one, against judgment take a default full It is this historical context that it severed interlocutory until was would be question here in provision must adjudicated. The was or entire case permits construed. The Small Act Claims judgment appeal on is statement a statutory appeal county an to the court or on “final” that a cannot mean a “final in a county judgment” court from interlocutory. appeal is not $20, involving more than exclusive de appeal actually costs.33 The trial adopts possible the second Court county statutory in the or novo court coun- “final”, meaning that the Act, ty court.34 Section 13 now court or court 28.035(d) as section recodified Gov- appealed after trial de novo cannot be judg- then ernment states that reasons, appeals. For the court of several appeal ment on is “final”.35 theAs Court implau- I think construction is the Court’s notes, ‘final,’ judg- “the as applied term sible. ments, meaning.”36 has more than one Act, section 13 of the “final” could mean If the 1953 intended First: (1) things: interlocutory, one of not to mean that a small claims three section 13 subject way and therefore could never reach the court of appeal court case —the nothing it appeals, is used sentences earlier civil then stated word few ju- already maximum permitting appeal judg- from “final not true. The was (2) ment”; subject all; court at limit the small claims appeal risdictional longer subject $100, high only it to nullificаtion in 1953was and was novo, mon- wage trial de like claims. The limit for other the small court juris- judgment, appealable etary The minimum but like $50. 27, 1985, 2460a, 3; § supra May note Act of Stat. Ann. art. 34. Tex.Rev.Civ. novo, ("The appeal § de 69th trial on shall be 1985 Tex. Gen. required pleadings and the formerly further shall Laws Stat. Tex.Rev.Civ. 200a-l, 7.001(a), procedure shall be the same that herein art. now recodified Ann. Court.”), 74.121(a). re- prescribed for the Small Claims as Tex Gov't Code ("Trial 28.053(b) codified as Tex Gov’t Code pleadings de novo. No further 2460a, § Ann. art. Stat. Tex.Rev.Civ. procedure is required are and the the same ("Where controversy, the amount in exclusive court.”). in small claims costs, Twenty exceeds the sum Dollars ($20), upon judgment by the rendition of final ("It 2460a, Court, § 13 Stat. Ann. art. judge of the Small Claims dissat- Tex.Rev.Civ. specifically provided that the County party may appeal to isfied Court County County at Law Court or County proper county at Court Law of final.”), as Tex Gov’t Code shall be reсodified provided in the same manner as is now ("Judgment statute for is fi- court at law on Court.”), as Tex. Gov’t recodified nal.”). 28.052(a) ("If in contro- amount costs, versy, exceeds a dis- exclusive party may (quoting Street v. Second Court appeal the final Ante at 751 satisfied (Tex.1988)). law.”). Appeals, of dictional limit the court of in appeal $20,40 civil involving cases and it up Thus, was no case within the small $100.37 only might well have allowed one in appeal claims court’s could ever reach involving cases between $20 $100. the court civil of unless entirely But it would have been inconsis- amount in controversy increased during Legislature tent for the to have created a trial de novo in appeal court court expeditiously to handle small claims statutory county and there was at up and at the time same set structure least authority some to pro- seemed that, when the in- court’s was such a change Thus, in the case.38 hibit creasеd, would make the small claims 1953, under the law as it in existed no case only court court in the State whose within the small claims court’s judgments significant on claims could not could appealed past ever be reviewed court civil appeals. statutory county court, and there Legislature surely foresaw that no for was reason to reit- small monetary jurisdiction- claims court’s in erate fact the Act. might years, al limits be increased over the says, Legisla- Second: As the 1987,43 1963,41 1983,42 as they were in ture’s creating clear intent in the small 1989,44 and 1991.45 The limit of current claims was provide “to an affordable $5,000 longer is no “relatively expeditious procedure litigating money”, amount[ at in ] least the same involving relatively small amounts (The money”39 up sense 1953. De- U.S. $100 1953. Consis- $100 — intent, tent with partment the Act did not reports allow of Labor that with infla- Dep’t Safety, 37. See Tune Texas appeal” Pub. serted for the time de first in a 'novo 358, (Tex.2000); S.W.3d court). 361-362 at 364-366 in the (Hecht, J., concurring). 39. Ante 750. 28.052(b) ("Appeal § 38. is in provided by appeal the manner law for from Tex. Gov’t Code 28.052(a). § court.”); justice court Tex.R. Civ. P. (“Either party appeal 574a [on 9, 1963, R.S., may plead any May Leg., court] 41. new matter in coun- Act 58th ch. 1, 368, 938, ty presented ... court which was not (wage Gen. 1963 Tex. Laws below, ground but recovery no new claims increased up by plaintiff, shall be set nor shall $150). up by set-off or counterclaim be set the defen- pleaded dant which was not 26, R.S., 1983, May 42. Leg., ch. Act 68th see, below.”); Stewart, e.g. Kramek v. 2, 733, 4508, (all 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 399, (Tex.App.-San S.W.2d 401-402 Antonio $1,000). claims increased to 1983, writ) (claim attorney’s no fees was a ground recovery” "new and thus could not 27, 1987, R.S., May Leg., ofAct 70th ch. court); sought on in the 745, 3, 2672, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws Service, Inc., see Harrill v. AJ.'s Wrecker (claims larger counties increased to (Tex.App.-Dallas $2,500). (new pet.) brought causes of action on court based on same 15, 1989, R.S., May Leg., ofAct 71st ch. claiming damages conduct and the sаme are 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws grounds recovery” "new in violation of (claims . in all small claims courts increased to 574a, effect”); practical Rule which "has little $2,500). Stevens, Crumpton v. (Tex.App.-Fort pet.) (statutory Worth attorney’s dependent origi- May claim for fees Act 72d pleaded nal action 2768' not a 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws (claims $5,000). ground recovery” "may "new be as- increased to

759 provision, controls the later-enacted tion, equivalent now of in 1953 is the $100 2005,46) importantly, More how- Legis- Even if the 1953 section 13.49 in over $744.57 a successor 2249 contemplate ever, of article did the re-enactment lature someday a claim for body consider Legislature would never intended that the shows $5,000 jurisdiction of the small within the appeals’ to the court of civil exception is also reason there in small originating jurisdiction for cases judgments on think that it intended for court. claims, they in court larger much whatever Legis- several occasions Fourth: On rendered, appealed not to might be appeals expressly prohibited lature has appeals. of court courts to the court statutory county from Indeed, ex- Third: in in cases in which the amount appeals of intent, contrary re-enacting pressed the $100, exclu- controversy not exceed does then article 2249 of the Texas what was costs, that an implying and of interest sive Annotated, Civil which Revised Statutes in a taken in case which can be appeal part: in pertinent stated controversy. is in For greater amount may of Error appeal An or Writ of Gov- example, 25.1902 the Texas of ev- Appeals taken to from Code, county pertaining ernment ery final of district court judgment County, at in Potter states: court law cases, in every judg- and from final civil (e)An may or writ of error not be county in of ment in civil cases appeals from final taken of ju- county original court has which lаw if: court at of risdiction, every judg- from final (1)the in judgment or amount contro- court in civil cases ment $100, exclusive versy not exceed does jurisdic- appellate ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍which the court has costs; and of interest tion, judgment or where the amount (2)the case is a civil over controversy exceeds one hundred dollars original or appellate the court exclusive interest and costs.47 jus- jurisdiction with the concurrent 1953 Act was never Section 13 tice court.50 amended or re-enacted. It and article provisions apply Similar were recodified sections 22.220(a) County,51Gray- Cameron 28.053 and section of the Texas County.53 respectively.48 County,52 Government Article Lubbock son Al- irreconcilable, Labor, legislature Department 46. La- are U.S. Bureau of stons Index, prevails”)). in date enactment bor statute latest Statistics Consumer Price Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpi- (last 15, 2005). calc.pl accessed November 25.1902(c). 50. Tex. Gov't Code R.S., May Leg., 47. 67th ch. Act (“An 25.0332(c) Code 51. Tex. Gov’t 291, § Laws 785. Gen. may a court or writ of error not be taken to a final from May 48. 69th Act (1) original if: court had or law Gen. Laws court; appellate jurisdiction with the and(2) judgment or amount in $100, excluding not exceed interest Moore, does costs.”). Corp. Hosp. Columbia (Tex.2002) (stating two that "when conflict, provision statutes the later-enacted 25.0932(c) ("An appeal controls”) (citing Tex Code Tex. Gov’t clauses, that, a court of savings "if writ error not be taken to (stating except for a final at the or different ses- statutes enacted same (1) though pertaining the statutes to the three court has appellate prior original latter counties were enacted concurrent with 1953,54 courts; pertaining the statute Potter 1955,55 was enacted after the amount contro- 1985, Small Claims Court Act. when $100, versy does not exceed exclusive pertinent jurisdiction statutes of of interest and costs.59 county constitutional courts were recodi- As the Note explains, Revisor’s subsection Chapter in of fied the Government (c) was “derived provisions similar Code,56 the revision explicit. less found in each of the local in laws codified 26.042, alia, Section inter provides gener- Subchapter E in which county court is that ally a constitutional court county given full jurisdiction concurrent with civil limited jurisdiction concurrent with the justice courts.”60 These show statutes courts,57 justice and that: Legislature’s intent before and Act passing after was that the of court (c) Subchapter If under E [“Provisions jurisdiction civil in appeals would have Relating Particular Counties”58] a involving cases more than $100. county original ju- court has concurrent justice risdiction with the in Moreover, courts all clearly other statutes contem- in justice civil matters which the plate judgment” that a “final when marks jurisdiction, an or writ a can case be in the aрpealed, absence error not may be taken to the court otherwise, language expressly providing a judgment than judgment rather when a cannot be from final county civil in appealed. court a case which: Property Section 24.007 of the (1) 26.042; court at if: § law or amount 57. See Tex. Gov’t Code also see $100, controversy excluding (civil does not exceed § county 26.043 matters in costs; (2) interest and is a civil jurisdiction). provi- is court without These appellate case over which the court law has also, generally indirectly speaking, de- sions original jurisdiction or concurrent with the jurisdiction fine courts. court.”). justice 25.003(a) (“A § statutory county court has proceedings, all over causes 25.1542(c) ("An appeal § 53. Tex. Gov't Code criminal, original appellate, pre- civil and or writ a of error taken to court of courts.”) scribed law for a a from final (1) appellate if: court at law the court had or (reserved §§ 58. 26.101 original jus- concurrent with the Tex. Code (reserved court; County) to Za- Anderson tice or amount in 26, (in County) excluding Chapter does not exceed vala "Constitutional costs.”). Courts”). interest and 1927, 31, C.S., May Leg., 54. Act of 40th 1st 26.042(c) (emphasis Tex. Gov’t Code add- 59, 4, 167, ch. Gen. Laws ed). (Cameron County); April Act of R.S., 126, 4,§ Leg., 50th ch. 1947 Tex. Gen. 60. See Revisor’s Note Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. (Grayson County); Laws 25, 1950,51st Act of Feb. (Vernon 2004) (c) ("Subsection § 26.042 C.S., 16, 4, Leg., ch. 1st provi- the revised law derived from similar (Lubbock County). Tex. Gen. Laws sions found in each of the local laws codified R.S., April Leg., Act 54th ch. Subchapter E in which court 56, 4, Gen. Laws given full with concurrent civil courts.”) justice May 56. Act of 69th 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws court, court, lan- another such contemplates express also peace necessary justice bar guage judgment” “final otherwise appealable yes

county court: and decided filed in an A final of a statutory county may not appealed eviction suit judge, peaсe premises issue of unless the possession question are for residen- being used yes only.61 purposes tial court, in trans- filed the small Safety of the Health and Section court, justice county to court ferred the limiting avail- express is also in the Code court, county and decided statutory or ability barring or appeal.62 an Statutes any justice peace or of the by judge limiting are less review this Court no eligible to sit 22.225(b) Govern- explicit. Section Code, of a judgment ment that a provides yes on law court “conclusive facts, court, not petition and and a for review is and de- filed the small claims court,” supreme to statutory allowed certain by any county court or cided cases, exception applies.63 a further justice unless county judge, byor of the court peace reiterate, correctly

To if the Court Act, construed section of the then the no $5,000: following of a involving is true case for оne reason can be offered No jurisdiction in court appeals? anomaly. appellant’s is the would-be Nor filed the district court loss, to incorrect unreviewable due an but 5,000, necessarily judgment, limited $ yes illus- by one of the cases cited Court Valdez,64 county statutory Oropeza filed trates. defendant court county court, by judge Oropeza county review of a court sought decided appeals, 61. Tex. court of and that error 24.007. mitted Prop.Code jurisprudence importance to the is of such 821.025(a) 62. Tex. Safety & Health that, opinion supreme of the the state ("An of an at owner animal ordered sold court, correction, excluding requires but it provided public subchapter auction as in this jurisdiction of the those cases in which the county may appeal order to a court or statute.”); court of is made final at law in the in which the court Cantu, Parr v. cf. municipal justice or The court is locаted.... (1960) (former Code art. Election county court decision of the court or 13.30, governing party contests of nomina- may appealed. at law An own- not further " tions, expressly provided that Su- '[t]he (1) appeal give er not order: jurisdic- preme Texas shall have Court of shelter, nonprofit pound, animal to a animal filed under to review election contest tion animals; society protection for the error, question, or certified this Act writ of animal.”). destroy humanely also See ”). any other manner.’ 172.060(c)("The Civ. Prac. Rem.Code & subject decision of the is final appeal.”). (Tex.App.-San Antonio 64. 53 S.W.3d pet.). 22.225(b). also Tex Gov’t Code 22.001(a)(6) ("[A]ny it other in which appears that an error of has been com- law $5,600, ground on the possible meaning The third of “final” in this void award was insofar it exceeded section 13 of the Small Claims Court Act— both that the $4,950 plaintiff

and the had Valdez court after de novo trial sought is, and obtained in the court.65 unlike the small claims court judg- ment, San Antonio Court of Appeals dis- final appealable like any other jurisdiction, missed his for want of anomalous conse- —avoids citing section preserves the Government limit quences, suggested might up that there small claims of reason- other legal remedies able construction of A Oropeza ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍judg- available.66 the statute. court, up vague invitation, subject took ment the small seeking this in- novo, junctive by trial “appeal” de is not “final” in declaratory relief in the dis- judgments.70 trict the same sense as asserting As Chief Justice Calvert wrote for the law’s void because it in Southern Canal monetary Co. State Bd. awarded relief in excess Eng’rs: Water limit of the small claims State, court.67 district court concluded that In Lone Star v. Gas Co. 137 Tex. void, judgment 279,153 not was S.W.2d we said: “Pow- and the of appeals, that noting try er to a case de novo vests a court district court could have concluded that full power with to determine the issues damages properly involved, increased rights were of all parties and to they awarded because had try accrued be- if case as the suit had been filed time, cause of passage originally affirmed.68 in that qua court.” The sine Thus, even if the damages awarded had of a non de novo trial as that term is exceeded the of the used describe a retrial of a matter or court —or far a more tried theretofore another court — amount, a litigant substantial be would left tribunal is judg- the nullification judicial without review.69 ment order of the first tribunal and a Valdez, Oropeza judgment v. 147 S.W.3d 481- fifty dered for "one hundred and (Tex.App.-San pet.). limit,” Antonio percent of its maximum the Court could not on the record before it (citing 66. 53 at 412 n. S.W.3d Davis v. say jurisdiction). trial court lacked Covert, (Tex.App.-Hous- 983 S.W.2d Moreover, judgment might erroneously 1998, pet. w.o.j.), ton [1st Dist.] dism'd granted, but still not constitute fundamental available). noting legal remedies Hodde, Young error. See 682 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. 1984) curiam), (per cited Lehmann v. 67. 147 S.W.3d 481-482. Corp., Har-Con 39 S.W.3d 200 n. 49 (generally, acquires Id. once a trial court error, (Tex.2001). complain To of such an jurisdiction, no later fact or will defeat event litigant by appeal, must seek review rather jurisdiction) (citing Cont'l Prods. Coffee than collateral attack. Cazarez, (Tex. Co. v. 937 S.W.2d 1996)); Haginas see also v. Malbis Mem. Smithwick, 70.See Scurlock Oil Co. Found., (Tex.1962) ("It " (Tex.1986) (stating '[t]he general is the rule that once view is that better otherwise final lawfully properly acquired, no subse taking despite so remains an quent particular event in fact or actually what is called unless con- jurisdiction.”) serves to defeat ” (quoting sists of trial de novo.' Restate- Cazarez, Cont’l Prods. Co. v. f)). Judgments cmt. Coffee (Second) ment (though S.W.2d at 450 court ren the judg- issues on retrial ju- was When

ment order founded. tribunal at-

risdiction of the second

taches, of the or order merely suspended,

first tribunal Examples type is nullified. of that applica- trial are found our statutes judg-

ble to from Justice Court made

ments and awards

Industrial Accident Board.71 Act, Legis-

In the Small Claims Court had to a of the

lature referred “final”, meaning claims court as sub-

small novo,

ject may simply to trial de claims liti- emphasize

wanted that the after trial de novo

gants “final” in yet another sense This, view, my plausi- the most

word.

ble construction of section and certain-

ly problematic. the least reasons,

For these I hold that would peti- had appeal and

tioner’s would reverse re-

mand that court consideration

merits. MARKETING,

BMG DIRECT

INC., Petitioner, PEAKE, Individually and

Patrick Similarly

Representative of Others

Situated, Respondent.

No. 03-0547.

Supreme Court of Texas. Feb.

Argued

Decided Nov. (1958).

71. 159 Tex.

Case Details

Case Name: Sultan v. Mathew

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 18, 2005

Citation: 178 S.W.3d 747

Docket Number: 03-0831

Court Abbreviation: Tex.