Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos Nat. Bank, 16689
| Decision Date | 13 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 16689,16689 |
| Citation | 628 S.W.2d 143 |
| Parties | GO LEASING, INC., Appellant, v. GROOS NATIONAL BANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Pat Reed, Dallas, for appellant.
Tim Tynan, San Antonio, for appellee.
Before KLINGEMAN, CLARK and BASKIN, JJ.
This is an appeal by writ of error from a "Judgment by Default" against the appellants. 1 The suit was based upon promissory notes alleged to be unpaid and past due. We affirm.
On June 16, 1980, pursuant to proper notice, the case was called for trial and only the appellee appeared. After hearing appellee's formal proof the trial court awarded judgment to appellee for all relief sought and a written judgment was signed on that date. On June 19, 1980, realizing that the judgment did not dispose of appellant's counterclaim, appellee filed a motion for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc, asserting that the omission to adjudicate the counterclaim was inadvertent. No notice of the motion or any hearing thereon was given to appellants. The motion was granted and a new judgment signed on that same date. The new judgment reiterated the provisions of the original judgment and, in addition, denied the counterclaim in its entirety.
Appellants present two grounds of error, complaining of lack of notice and hearing before the revised judgment was entered, and asserting that the mistake corrected was judicial rather than clerical and thus not subject to correction nunc pro tunc.
In support of their contention that they were entitled to notice of application for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc under Tex.R.Civ.P. 316, appellants rely upon Johnson v. Hanson, 575 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1978, no writ). Appellants' reliance, however, is misplaced. In Johnson the trial court first granted a default judgment awarding damages of $1,200.00 on May 4, 1977. Three months later, without notice to the judgment defendants, the same court granted a judgment nunc pro tunc awarding damages of $2,500.00 instead. On appeal the court held that if the amount of the award in the original judgment was error, it was judicial error which "(t)he trial court as a matter of law was powerless to correct" after the original judgment had become final. 575 S.W.2d at 362. Johnson thus stands for the proposition that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to correct a judicial error in its judgment after the judgment becomes final. Insofar as the court in Johnson also struck down a judgment nunc pro tunc for the "additional reason" of lack of notice to the appellant, it relied upon earlier cases which enunciated the rule that "(a) nunc pro tunc judgment entered at a subsequent term without notice to the parties affected thereby is not valid." Stevenson v. Fisk, 65 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1933, no writ). Terms of court now being continuous, a situation analogous to entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc at a subsequent term is presented by entry of such a judgment after the original judgment has become final. Under those circumstances, as Johnson points out, Rule 316 applies and notice must be given.
In the case before us, however, the original judgment was modified only three days after it was signed. It is well established that a trial court has plenary power to reverse, modify or vacate its judgment at any time before it becomes final. Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.1978); Bergman v. West, 262 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1953, no writ). This power is inherent in the court and is not dependent upon any statute; and in exercising its power to correct or modify its judgment before it becomes final, the trial court is not required to give notice to the parties. Silberstein v. State, 522 S.W.2d 562 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1975, no writ). 2
Appellants' first ground of error is overruled.
Appellants' second ground of error presents the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cornealius v. State, A14-92-01018-CR
...which the trial court still had plenary power over its order. See Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.1978); Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos Nat'l Bank, 628 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1982, no writ). Until an indictment is returned by the grand jury, which in this case occurred......
-
Ferguson v. Naylor
...amend, or correct its judgment. Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(e); see also Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.1978); Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos Nat. Bank, 628 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1982, no In contending that the judgment can be corrected at any time to bring it into conformity ......
-
Price Construction, Inc. v. Castillo
...time it still has plenary jurisdiction, it is a modified judgment, not a judgment nunc pro tunc); Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos Nat'l Bank, 628 S.W.2d 143, 144-45 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1982, no Price also argued in its appellant's brief that the judgment awarding the ad litem fee is a nullity b......
-
Clute Apartments 1 v. Jerry Lorson D/b/a Tufftop Refinishing Serv.
...provided the basis for his moving for a new trial (because Lorson failed to provide him with adequate notice). In Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos National Bank, 628 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, no writ), as here, a party obtaining a judgment filed a motion nunc pro tunc which was ......