X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Finding a portion of Electronic Power wrongly decided, the en banc court overrules it to the extent it holds that a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law extends the trial court’s plenary power. FACTS:In the underlying suit, a trial court entered a final divorce decree on Sept. 20, 2002. An intervenor filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on Oct. 22, the trial court signed its findings and conclusions. A conference was held on the findings and conclusions on Nov. 6, and the judge ordered a judgment nunc pro tunc be prepared and set for entry on Nov. 22. Meanwhile, the husband in the divorce filed a letter noting a judicial error in the original judgment. Relying on Electronic Power Design Inc. v. R.A. Hanson Co., 821 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.App. � Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ), the trial court determined its plenary jurisdiction, which would have expired 30 days after the original judgment, or Oct. 21, had been extended by the filing of the request for findings and conclusions. On Nov. 27, the trial court signed an order setting aside the original judgment and granting a new trial. The husband seeks a writ of mandamus to prohibit the new trial and reinstate the judgment. HOLDING:Writ denied; motion to dismiss denied. Sitting en banc, the court overrules a portion of Electronic Power and rules that a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend a trial court’s plenary power. The court acknowledges that the holding in Electronic Power indicated that such a request would extend the court’s plenary power. The court points out, however, that plenary power refers to the period of time in which a trial court may vacate its judgment by granting a new trial or in which it can modify or correct its judgment. T.R.Civ.P. 329 sets out the types of post-judgment action that will extend the trial court’s plenary power. A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is not on the list, and unlike the actions that are, such a request does not seek a substantive change in the judgment. The findings and conclusions merely explain the ruling. A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law can be issued after the trial court’s plenary power has expired, and they can extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, but they do not extend the trial court’s plenary power, the court rules. Overruling that portion of Electronic Power that said a request did extend the trial court’s plenary power, the court acknowledges that the trial court relied in good faith on this precedent. The court therefore denies the writ and remands the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Electronic Power’s repudiation. The court denies the motion to dismiss, which was based on the husband’s authority to bring this action. OPINION:Guzman, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.