X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This is a restricted appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30. The appellant, John F. Brown, is the defendant below. The jury rendered a verdict favorable to him, yet the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution when a proposed judgment was not submitted by the parties. In two issues, Brown argues that the trial court’s dismissal of this case for want of prosecution is an abuse of discretion. The record reflects that a jury verdict was returned on Sept. 14, 2003. Approximately two months later, the trial court sent a letter to counsel, dated Nov. 12, 2003, which called a hearing on Dec. 12, 2003. This letter appeared to be a form letter, since it called for a “pre-trial” hearing. However, the Nov. 12th letter was clear that a hearing was being called by the trial court on this case since the case was identified by style and case number. The docket sheet supplied as part of this record reflects a hand-written entry that no one appeared for that hearing. The trial court sent a second letter to counsel dated Dec. 16, 2003, calling for a second hearing. That hearing, set for Jan. 23, 2004, was approximately four months after the jury verdict. The second letter appears to be an original letter, not a form, and refers to this case by style and case number. The trial court made it clear in this letter that no proposed judgment had been received to dispose of the case. Further, the trial judge warned that if no judgment was provided to the court by the Jan. 23 hearing date, the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. No one appeared at that hearing on Jan. 23, 2004, and an order was signed and dated that very day dismissing the case for want of prosecution. HOLDING:Affirmed. “[T]his restricted appeal gives us no latitude to review issues such as whether notice of the two hearings had been received by the parties. We are confined to a determination of whether an error is apparent from the face of the record. “The record does not reflect a lack of diligent prosecution, at least to the jury verdict. In fact, the party seeking relief from the dismissal for want of prosecution is the defendant below, whom the parties agree was favored by the jury’s answers to the charge. However, as the parties acknowledge, it would have been customary for a take-nothing judgment to be submitted to the trial court after the verdict. Yet Brown, the defendant below, did not do that. Accordingly, over a period of approximately four months after the verdict, the trial court sought the parties’ assistance in disposing of the case. Specifically, in the letter to the parties which gave notice of the second hearing, the court explained that it needed a judgment to dispose of the case, and if one was not submitted, the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. On this record, the direction to the parties was clear. The parties were sent two notices which should have caused one or both to act. They did not. The trial judge ruled as he said he would in the absence of a proposed judgment. “On this record, on this restricted appeal, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. We decide appellant’s points against him and affirm the trial court’s judgment.” OPINION:Lang, J.; O’Neill, Richter and Lang, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.