Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals
| Decision Date | 03 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-5290,C-5290 |
| Citation | 722 S.W.2d 692 |
| Parties | HOUSTON HEALTH CLUBS, INC. et al., Relators, v. The FIRST COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Don Fogel, Thomas Alexander and Kevin McEvily, Alexander, Fogel & McEvily, Houston, for relators.
Joe Alfred Izen, Jr., Houston, for respondent.
The issue in this original mandamus proceeding is whether a trial court's order granting a new trial is voidable because it was signed after that court lost plenary jurisdiction over its default judgment. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant the new trial depends on whether the default judgment is interlocutory or final. In a previous mandamus proceeding, the court of appeals concluded that the default judgment was final and that the trial court's order granting new trial was voidable. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals directed the trial court to vacate its order of new trial. Minns v. Salazar, No. 01-86-0146-CV (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding). We hold that the trial court's order of new trial is not voidable because the default judgment is interlocutory. The court of appeals therefore abused its discretion in ordering the trial court to vacate its order, and we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.
The lawsuit underlying the present mandamus is a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlord filed suit seeking possession of the leased premises, damages for waste, punitive damages and attorney's fees. The tenant, who is our present relator, failed to answer, and a default judgment was rendered for the landlord. The default judgment granted the landlord all the relief sought except for punitive damages which the judgment did not mention either expressly or by implication.
Seven months later, the tenant filed its motion for new trial in which it argued that the default judgment was interlocutory because it did not dispose of all the issues or claims in the case. The tenant also argued improper service under the Texas Long-Arm Statute, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 17.041 et seq. (Vernon 1986), as well as the requisite elements for a new trial. See Craddock v. Sunshine Buslines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). The trial court agreed that the default judgment was interlocutory, agreed that service under the Long-Arm Statute was defective, and agreed that tenant was entitled to a new trial.
Landlord then filed for mandamus relief with the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that the default judgment was final, that the trial court lost jurisdiction over its judgment thirty days after its signing, Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(d), and that the tenant's claim of defective service could only be pursued by bill of review or appealed by writ of error. McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125, 345 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.1961). We do not agree that the default judgment was final.
A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and all issues in a lawsuit. Schlipf v. Exxon Corporation, 644 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex.1982). In determining whether a judgment is final, different presumptions apply depending on whether the judgment follows a conventional trial on the merits or results from default or a motion for summary judgment. Following a conventional trial on the merits, the judgment is presumed final. This is the rule from Northeast Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bandera Elec. Co-op., Inc.
... ... No. 04-94-00547-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, ... San Antonio ... Citizens First Nat'l Bank v. Cinco Exploration Co., 540 S.W.2d ... proof is legally insufficient." City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 ... , 866 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Tex.1993)); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d ... ...
-
First City, Texas-Beaumont, NA v. Treece
... ... 1:92-CV-495 ... United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division ... February ... of directors of Farmer's Discount Supply, Inc. ("Farmer's"), a farm supply store in Winnie, ... Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, ... ...
-
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
... ... No. 99-0406, 99-0461 ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ... Argued January 26, 2000 ... Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas ... Page ... defendants), Tim Rice and Rice Development, Inc. ("the Rice defendants"), and Harbour Title Co ... Page 197 ... in the first suit, but because it was adjudicated: ... Lehmann v. Har-Con-Corp., (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998), 988 S.W.2d 415 (1999) (op. on ... 46 ... See, e.g., Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals
... ... Prasifka, Lorance & Thompson, Houston, Tom Henson, Michael A. Hatchell, Gregory D. Smith, Ramey, ... manufacturer of the forklift, and Stewart & Stevenson, Inc., the seller of the forklift. American International ... The focus in this case is on the first prong. Welch's affidavit stated that he had a good-faith ... Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.1986); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692 ... ...