Transamerican Leasing Co. v. Three Bears, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. B-7398,B-7398 |
| Parties | TRANSAMERICAN LEASING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THREE BEARS, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Daniel R. Rutherford, San Antonio, for petitioner.
Lang, Cross, Ladon, Boldrick & Green, Paul M. Green, Lawrence H. Rubenstein, Bruce Waitz, Van H. Johnson, James N. Martin, Robert C. Patterson, San Antonio, for respondents.
The question presented by this appeal is whether a trial court has the plenary power to vacate a judgment while the amended motion for new trial is pending before that court. Here, the trial court vacated the original judgment more than thirty days after it was rendered but within forty-five days after the amended motion for new trial was filed. A second judgment was subsequently entered by the trial court and this appeal was perfected. The court of civil appeals held that the trial court's plenary power over its judgment terminates thirty days after the rendition of the judgment where a motion for new trial is not overruled. It, therefore, construed the order vacating the judgment as an order granting a new trial and it reversed the second judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial. 560 S.W.2d 183.
Judgments shall become final after the expiration of thirty (30) days after the date of rendition of judgment or order overruling an original or amended motion for new trial. After the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date the judgment is rendered or motion for new trial overruled, the judgment cannot be set aside except by bill of review for sufficient cause, filed within the time allowed by law. The failure of a party to file a motion for new trial within the ten (10) day period prescribed in subdivision 1 of this rule shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to set aside a judgment rendered by it, provided such action be taken within thirty (30) days after the judgment is rendered. The filing of a motion for new trial after ten (10) days have expired and before thirty (30) days have expired since the rendition of the judgment shall not operate to extend the court's jurisdiction over the judgment for a period of more than thirty (30) days from the date of the rendition of judgment.
Under the express provision of this rule, the trial court retains jurisdiction over the cause and, thus, plenary power over its judgment until thirty days after the original or amended motion for new trial is overruled. The original or amended motion for new trial is pending before the trial court until it is overruled either by written order or by operation of law at the expiration of forty-five days from the filing thereof. Rule 329b, § 3 and 4. During...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland
...has plenary power to reverse, modify, or vacate its judgment at any time before it becomes final."); Transamerican Leasing Co. v. Three Bears, Inc., 567 S.W.2d 799, 800 (Tex.1978) (same); BLACK'S LAW DICT. 870 (8th ed.2004) (defining "plenary jurisdiction" as "[a] court's full and absolute ......
-
Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Hous., Inc. v. John Moore Servs., Inc.
...power over its judgment until it becomes final. Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.1978) ; Transamerican Leasing Co. v. Three Bears, Inc., 567 S.W.2d 799, 800 (Tex.1978). The trial court also retains continuing control over interlocutory orders and has the power to set those orders ......
-
Ortiz v. O. J. Beck & Sons, Inc.
...can amend a judgment prior to the time that it becomes final. Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.1978); Transamerican Leasing Co. v. Three Bears, Inc., 567 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.1978). After the judgment becomes final, it can be altered only if the evidence shows that a clerical error, rather ......
-
Miller v. State
...the court has the power to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment or to grant a new trial," Transamerican Leasing Company v. Three Bears, Inc., 567 S.W.2d 799, 780 (Tex.1978). That power was characterized as "plenary" in Schley v. Structural Metals, Inc., 595 S.W.2d 572, 584 (Tex.C......