Sultan v. Mathew

• Decision Date: 18 November 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-0831.,03-0831.
• Citation: 178 S.W.3d 747
• Parties: Yusuf SULTAN, d/b/a U.S. Carpet and Floors, Petitioner v. Savio MATHEW, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 747

178 S.W.3d 747

Yusuf SULTAN, d/b/a U.S. Carpet and Floors, Petitioner v. Savio MATHEW, Respondent.

No. 03-0831.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 18, 2005.

Timothy Collins Anderson, M. Ryan Kirby, Law Firm of Timothy C. Anderson, PLLC, Houston, for Petitioner.

Savio Mathew, Missouri City, pro se.

Chief Justice JEFFERSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'NEILL, Justice GREEN, Justice JOHNSON, Justice SIMMONS¹ (assigned) and Justice GAULTNEY² (assigned) join.

In this case we determine whether courts of appeals have jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments of county courts or county courts at law following a de novo appeal from a small claims court. The Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 2 rendered a default judgment against Yusuf Sultan ("Sultan") d/b/a U.S. Carpet and Floors after Sultan failed to appear for trial. Sultan appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which dismissed Sultan's appeal for want of jurisdiction based on section 28.053(d) of the Texas Government Code.³ 2003 WL 1738864. Because we agree that courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction over cases originally filed in small claims court, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment.

I Background

Savio Mathew ("Mathew") sued Sultan in small claims court for damages resulting from the installation of a laminate floor in Mathew's home. The small claims court awarded Mathew $4000, and Sultan filed an appeal for a de novo trial in the Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 2. See Tex. Gov't Code §§ 28.052(a), 28.053(b). A trial was set and notice was sent to Sultan; however, because Sultan allegedly did not receive the trial notice, he did not appear. Consequently, the county court rendered a default judgment against him. Sultan appealed to the court of appeals. Citing section 28.053(d) of the Texas Government Code, the court of appeals concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. 2003 WL 1738864. We granted Sultan's petition for review to determine whether courts of appeals have jurisdiction over judgments of county courts or county courts at law following a de novo appeal from a small claims court. 47 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 417 (Apr. 12, 2004).

II Discussion

A party dissatisfied with a small claims court judgment may appeal to the county court or county court at law for a de novo trial if the amount in controversy exceeds $20. Tex. Gov't Code §§ 28.052(a), 28.053(b). The Texas Government Code provides that a "[j]udgment of the county court or county court at law on the appeal [from the small claims court] is final." Id. § 28.053(d) (emphasis added). The question here is whether the word "final" in section 28.053(d) means final and appealable or final and not appealable.

Before 1998, several courts held that a county court's or county court at law's judgment on de novo appeal from a small claims court could be appealed to the court of appeals. See, e.g., Galil Moving & Storage, Inc. v. McGregor, 928 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Sablatura v. Ellis, 753 S.W.2d 521, 522-23 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.); see also Alan Wright et al., Appellate Practice and Procedure, 54 SMU L.Rev. 1093, 1119 (2001). In 1998, however the First Court of Appeals held that the word "final" in section 28.053(d) meant "that there is no further appeal beyond the county court or county court at law." Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (overruling Sablatura, 753 S.W.2d 521). The Davis holding has since been followed by most Texas courts of appeals. See, e.g., Oropeza v. Valdez, 53 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.); Woodlands Plumbing Co. v. Rodgers, 47 S.W.3d 146, 148 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied); Howell Aviation Servs. v. Aerial Ads, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 321, 323 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.); Williamson v. A-1 Elec. Auto Serv., 28 S.W.3d 731, 731-32 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.); Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); Gaskill v. Sneaky Enters., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied); Automania, L.L.C. v. May, No. 03-03-00592-CV, 2004 WL 852275 (Tex.App.-Austin April 22, 2004, no pet.) (mem.op.); Martin v. Vaughan, No. 11-02-00133-CV, 2003 WL 22741155 (Tex. App.-Eastland Nov.20, 2003, no pet.) (mem.op.); Townsend v. Accidental Injury Treatment Ctr., No. 07-99-0073-CV, 2000 WL 157900 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Feb.9, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

Although we have never specifically addressed the finality language in section 28.053(d), we have twice considered similar language in other statutes. In Seale v. McCallum, 116 Tex. 662, 287 S.W. 45 (Tex. 1926), we held that a statute declaring that the district court's judgment on an election contest was "final" precluded appellate review of election contests by the courts of civil appeals. We stated:

The election contest was instituted and tried under the provisions of Revised Statutes (1925), art. 3152, which, while providing for a contest of primary elections, declared that the decision of the district court or judge trying the contest should be "final as to all district, county precinct, or municipal offices." The plain purpose of the clause quoted was to deny appellate jurisdiction to the Courts of Civil Appeals over contested elections of the character here involved.

Id. at 45.In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Matagorda County Drainage Dist. No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.1980), we reached the opposite conclusion. In that case, we reviewed section 56.082 of the Texas Water Code, which gives the commissioners court exclusive jurisdiction over certain proceedings relating to drainage districts and provides that the commissioners court's judgment on such issues "is final." Id. at 911 (construing Tex. Water Code § 56.082). We concluded that "[t]he legislature did not intend by using the term `final' in section 56.082 to prevent all review of commissioners court orders," and we therefore held that commissioners court orders annexing territory for drainage districts were subject to review by the district court. Id.

While both Mobil Oil and Seale are instructive in that they address similar language, neither case offers direct insight into the Legislature's intent in using the word "final" in section 28.053(d). When construing a statute, "[o]ur primary objective ... is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent." Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex.2004). To discern that intent, we consider the objective the law seeks to obtain and the consequences of a particular construction. Tex. Gov't Code § 311.023(1), (5); see also City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d at 642. We must consider the statute as a whole and give meaning to the language that is consistent with its other provisions. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d at 642. Applying these principles, we conclude that by declaring in section 28.053(d) that the "judgment of the county court or county court at law is final," the Legislature intended to prohibit appeals to the courts of appeals. The Legislature created the small claims court to provide an affordable and expedient procedure for litigating claims involving relatively small amounts of money.⁴ See Act of May 27, 1953, 53rd Leg., R.S., ch. 309, § 17, 1953 Tex. Gen. Laws 778, 780 (creating small claims court and noting "[t]he fact that many citizens of the State of Texas are now in effect denied justice because of the present expense and delay of litigation when their claims involve small sums of money; and the further fact that the discouragement of litigation based on financial ability is contrary to the public policy of this State"); see also O.L. Sanders, Jr., The Small Claims Court, 1 S. Tex. L.J. 80, 85-86 (1954) ("Viewing the Small Claims Court Act as a whole, it must be concluded that the main object and purpose of the law was to place justice within the reach of many Texas citizens, who were previously denied such relief because the litigation expense and delay overshadowed their small claim."). This basic purpose is reflected in almost every aspect of small claims court procedure. For example, the institution of a small claims action requires little more than completing a one-page form. See Tex. Gov't Code § 28.012(b). The hearing is "informal, with the sole objective being to dispense speedy justice between the parties." Id. § 28.033(d). On appeal, the county court must dispose of the claim "with all convenient speed." Id. § 28.053(a). When construing section 28.053(d) in the context of other small claims court provisions, all of which underscore the Legislature's basic goal of providing a simplified and inexpensive court procedure, it is reasonable to conclude that in section 28.053(d), the Legislature intended to forgo the added time and expense which inevitably accompany an appeal to the court of appeals.⁵

In Mobil Oil, we rejected Matagorda County's contention that the word "final" in section 56.082 of the Texas Water Code meant "not reviewable," reasoning that the Legislature did not intend to prevent all review of commissioners court orders annexing territory to drainage districts. See Mobil Oil Corp., 597 S.W.2d at 911. Here, however, we note that section 28.053(d) incorporates a form of appellate review. The Legislature has specifically provided that a dissatisfied party can obtain review of a small claims court judgment by appealing to the county court or county court at law for a de novo trial. See Tex. Gov't Code §§ 28.052(a), 28.053(b). Thus, in section 28.053(d) the Legislature intended not to prevent all review of a small claims court judgment, but rather to limit the extent of review and thereby minimize the "expense and delay of litigation." See Act of May 27, 1953, 53rd Leg., R.S., ch. 309, § 17, 1953 Tex. Gen. Laws 778, 780.

Sultan contends that because a "final judgment" is required for an...