Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, ABU-AHMAD
| Citation | 783 S.W.2d 210 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | ABU-AHMAD,No. C-9254,C-9254 |
| Parties | SHADOWBROOK APARTMENTS et al., Petitioners, v. Wajih& Agatha Abu-Ahmad, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Sidney W. Davis, Jr., Dallas, for petitioners.
Henry B. Parkhill, David C. Cowden, Grand Prairie, for respondents.
This case involves the issue of whether a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is appealable.
Respondents Wajih Abu-Ahmad and Agatha Abu-Ahmad filed suit against Elcor Property Corporation, Shadowbrook Apartments, Pace Realty, Inc., and State Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lubbock. On August 10, 1988, the Abu-Ahmads filed a motion for nonsuit as to Elcor Property Corporation. The next day the trial court signed an order, prepared and submitted by the Abu-Ahmads' counsel, purporting to dismiss the entire suit, not just the action against Elcor. The Abu-Ahmads did not file a motion for new trial, appeal bond or take any other action within 30 days after the dismissal order was signed. On November 17, 1988, more than 90 days after the signing of the order of dismissal, the Abu-Ahmads filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, asking the trial court to amend its August 11, 1988, order to dismiss only Elcor. The trial court denied this motion, stating it no longer had jurisdiction, and that the corrections sought involved a judicial error, not a clerical one.
The Abu-Ahmads appealed to the court of appeals, 776 S.W.2d 704, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause as to the remaining three defendants. The petitioners argue that the Abu-Ahmads did not appeal from the dismissal order itself, but rather from the denial of their Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc. The Abu-Ahmads argue they are appealing the order of dismissal itself. In either case, we hold that the court of appeals was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
If the Abu-Ahmads are appealing the dismissal order of August 11, their appeal is not timely. No timely appeal bond was filed within 30 days after the dismissal order was signed as is required under TEX.R.APP.P. 41(a)(1). Thus, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the dismissal order.
Conversely, if the Abu-Ahmads are in fact complaining of the denial of their Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, they are not appealing a final judgment. With only a few exceptions not applicable here, appeals are allowed only from final judgments of a district or county co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Ruiz
...at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (quoting Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu–Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex.1990) (per curiam)). A nonsuit of the plaintiff's cause of action “is not an adjudication of the rights of the parties and doe......
-
Alvarado v. Hyundai Motor Co.
...orig. proceeding). Consequently, the trial judge merely performs a ministerial act in granting the nonsuit. 8 Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex.1990); Greenberg v. Brookshire, 640 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Tex.1982). The taking of a nonsuit does not prejudice the parties ......
-
Weddel v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services
...as of right is effective the moment an appropriate motion is filed with the clerk of the court. See, e.g., Shadowbrook Apts. v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex.1990). Confirming our own sense that by "filed" the court meant filed, not mailed, are the interpretations of intermediate appe......
-
Aaron v. Fisher
...Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Shultz , 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006) (quoting Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad , 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) ). A plaintiff's nonsuit, however, "shall not prejudice the right of an adverse party to be heard on a pending c......