Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
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:Kelvin Malone appeals the trial court’s “amended order on October 22, 2004 hearing” imposing $300 in sanctions against him for filing a motion for new trial the court found to be “frivolous” and brought “for the purposes of harassment.” Malone asserts in one issue that the court’s order is void because the court had lost jurisdiction. HOLDING:The “amended order on October 22, 2004 hearing” is void and the court dismisses the appeal. Having signed the final decree of divorce Aug. 16, 2004, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the case until at least Sept. 15, 2004, the 30th day from judgment. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b(d). Although the parties to the divorce could have extended this period up to an additional 75 days by timely filing a motion for new trial or to correct, modify or reform the judgment, neither did. The only motion for new trial filed was that of Malone, who filed as intervenor. However, to have successfully intervened and been effective in extending the court’s plenary jurisdiction, Malone had to have filed his petition in intervention prior to the entry of the divorce decree or had the decree set aside within 30 days from judgment. Neither occurred. Accordingly, Malone’s motion for new trial did not extend the court’s plenary jurisdiction beyond Sept. 15 and the court’s sanction order, entered in October, is void. In making his first argument, that Malone’s plea in intervention was timely, Hampton relies on Breazeale v. Casteel, 4 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App. -Austin 1999, pet. denied). Unlike the intervenors in Breazeale, and contrary to Hampton’s argument, Malone sought to alter the underlying judgment in this case by seeking a specific award of attorney’s fees for services rendered, a matter properly part of the divorce suit. Moreover, unlike the Breazeale intervenors � whose basis for intervening stemmed not from Breazeale’s original suit against Casteele but from their assignment of portions of interest in Casteele’s judgment in an unrelated suit after Breazeale had obtained a judgment from Casteele � Malone’s basis for intervening stemmed from his representation in the divorce itself. The court finds no merit to Hampton’s reliance on Breazeale. Hampton argues that even if Malone’s plea in intervention was untimely, the court nonetheless retained jurisdiction to order sanctions. In making this argument, Hampton relied on Wolma v. Gonzalez, 822 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1991, orig. proceeding). in Jobe v. Lapidus, 874 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1994, writ denied), this court specifically declined to follow Wolma. Moreover, the facts in Wolma are distinguishable from this case. Unlike the Wolma motion, which was filed prior to the expiration of the court’s plenary power, the motion here was filed after the court’s plenary power had expired. The court disagrees that a person choosing to file a document after the court’s plenary jurisdiction has expired simply to harass another party would be “the necessary consequence” of the court’s conclusion that the court’s order, having been signed after the expiration of its plenary jurisdiction, is void. OPINION:Richter, J.; Morris, Wright and Richter, JJ.

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.