Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc. v. Zardenetta
| Decision Date | 13 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. C-8971,C-8971 |
| Citation | 776 S.W.2d 577 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | EMERALD OAKS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., et al., Relators, v. The Honorable Antonio A. ZARDENETTA, Judge, Respondent. |
Michael F. Pezzulli, Charles J. Fortunato, Dallas, for relators.
Don H. Magee, Austin, for respondent.
The issue in this original mandamus proceeding is whether an oral pronouncement and docket entry may be used in lieu of a written order to reinstate a cause previously dismissed for want of prosecution. A majority of the court answers no and holds that an order of reinstatement must be in writing and signed during the period of the trial court's plenary power and jurisdiction. The trial court's order of reinstatement conflicts with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) and Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.1980, orig. proceeding).
Relators Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc., Allan Clark, and Joseph E. Casperone were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by Pan Tex Hotel Corporation and Conference Center Development Corporation in December 1985. This lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution by written order signed on July 27, 1988.
Pan Tex timely filed a motion to reinstate. Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(3). A docket entry indicates that on the day the motion to reinstate was filed, the trial court granted the motion and directed the attorney for Pan Tex to submit an order for signature. A written order reinstating the cause was not signed until November 30, 1988, 126 days after the date of the order of dismissal.
As required by rule, relator has first sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals. Tex.R.App.P. 121(a)(1). After that court refused relief, relator filed a motion in this court urging that the trial court's plenary power over its judgment of dismissal ended on November 9, 1988, that being 105 days after the order of dismissal. A majority of the court agrees.
Rule 165a(3) provides that a motion to reinstate is overruled by operation of law if "for any reason a motion for reinstatement is not decided by a signed written order within 75 days after the judgment is signed ..." (Emphasis added). Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(3). Thereafter the court retains plenary power and jurisdiction over the cause for an additional 30 days. Id. No written order of reinstatement having been signed during this 105-day period, the judgment of dismissal became final, terminating the trial court's plenary power over its judgment. Walker, 597 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preiss v. Moritz
... ... In Palmer Well Services, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 776 S.W.2d 575 (Tex ... ...
-
Enriquez v. Livingston
...court's plenary power expires, it can take no further action on the case. SeeTex.R. Civ. P. 329b(d); Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.1989); Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.1980); Florance v. State, 352 S.W.3d 867, 874 n. 5 (Tex.App.-D......
-
In the Interest of G.H.D., No. 01-05-00228-CV (TX 10/20/2005)
...the case because it is not a written order and is reflected in the record solely by a docket entry. See Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Ctr. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.1989) (construing Rule 165a(3) to require motion to reinstate be "decided by a signed written order"); In re Wal......
-
In re Wal-Mart, Store, Inc.
...case and it became a final judgment upon expiration of the trial court's plenary jurisdiction. See Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1989). When addressing errors made in judgments, the term "clerical error" has a specialized meaning. A cler......