Baker v. Hansen, C-3411
| Decision Date | 24 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3411,C-3411 |
| Citation | 679 S.W.2d 480 |
| Parties | Lynn T. BAKER, Petitioner, v. Richard HANSEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
James L. McNees, Jr., Dallas, for petitioner.
Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, Luke Madole, Dallas, for respondent.
This case involves a landlord-tenant dispute. The tenant, Lynn Baker, sued her former landlord, Richard Hansen, seeking damages under several theories of recovery. Hansen answered and counterclaimed for damages for holdover rents, costs of repair and other relief. The trial court dismissed Baker's claims for affirmative relief reciting in its order that Baker had failed to comply with the court's ruling for costs. TEX.R.CIV.P. 143. Thereafter, Baker filed a motion for new trial which was overruled. Baker next filed an affidavit of indigency claiming she was unable to give security for costs of trial or appeal. Hansen and the district clerk contested Baker's affidavit. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the contests. The order recited that Baker "should not be required to give security for the costs of appeal." This order was signed thirty-four days after the court had overruled Baker's motion for new trial.
Baker appealed arguing that the trial court, after overruling the contests to her affidavit of indigency, should have reinstated her claims for affirmative relief. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court of appeals affirmed the order of dismissal. The court of appeals concluded the trial court had lost its authority to modify or amend its order of dismissal by the time it ruled on Baker's affidavit of indigency because the period of plenary jurisdiction had passed. TEX.R.CIV.P. 329b(e). We disagree.
The court of appeals has erred in assuming jurisdiction of the present appeal because the order dismissing Baker's claims for affirmative relief is not a final judgment. A final judgment is one disposing of all issues and parties in the case. Schlipf v. Exxon, 644 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.1982). The present order of dismissal does not dispose of all issues because there remains for trial those issues raised in Hansen's counterclaim. The order of dismissal is therefore interlocutory and cannot provide the basis for appeal. Steeple Oil & Gas Corp. v. Amend, 394 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.1965); Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 159 Tex. 550, 324 S.W.2d 200 (1959). This court has jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bandera Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...granted judgment as a matter of law on the counterclaims. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Lindsay, 787 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex.1990); Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984); Chessher, 658 S.W.2d at 564; Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d at 678; PHB, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 539 S.W.2d 60 However, t......
-
In re J.F.C.
...judgment of the court below for error — without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved. See Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984). Second, we apply fundamental-error review when an important public interest or public policy is at stake. See, e.g., Ramsey......
-
Phillips v. Montoya
...does not apply to summary judgments or default judgments. Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. 1984) ; Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex. 1984) ; PHB, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 539 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. 1976) ; Dickerson v. Mack Financial Corporation, 452 S.W.2d 552, 554–55 (Tex. Civ. A......
-
Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc.
...final and subsisting judgment. Id. Further, "[a] final judgment is one disposing of all issues and parties in the case." Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984), citing Schlipf v. Exxon, 644 S.W.2d 453 In the present case, the Order dated November 10, 1983 states that "[t]he court s......