Document Info

DocketNumber: 01-19-00681-CV

Filed Date: 12/10/2019

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/11/2019

  • Opinion issued December 10, 2019
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-19-00681-CV
    ———————————
    QUADRY MILLS, Cross-Appellant
    V.
    ASHLEY ALLESSANDRIA HOLDEN, Cross-Appellee
    On Appeal from the 507th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 2019-42557
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Cross-appellant, Quadry Mills, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
    September 24, 2019 “Order Granting Motion for New Trial.” We dismiss the
    cross-appeal.
    On August 5, 2019, the trial court signed a “Default Order Adjudicating
    Parentage and to Establish the Parent-Child Relationship.” On September 6, 2019,
    cross-appellee, Ashley Allessandria Holden, filed a motion for new trial and,
    separately, a notice of appeal. On September 27, 2019, three days after the motion
    for new trial was granted, Mills filed a notice of appeal of the order granting the
    motion for new trial.
    A motion for new trial filed must be filed, if at all, within thirty days of the
    date the final judgment is signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. A timely filed motion for
    new trial extends the trial court’s plenary power. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(e). Holden’s
    motion for new trial was due by September 4, 2019. Holden filed her motion for
    new trial on September 6, 2019, thirty-two days after the final judgment was
    signed. Because the motion for new trial was untimely filed, it did not extend the
    trial court’s plenary power. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(e). Given that the motion for
    new trial was not timely filed, the trial court’s order granting the motion for new
    trial is void because the trial court lacked plenary power. See Castro v. Shell Oil
    Co., No. 01-10-00609-CV, 
    2011 WL 1234382
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
    Dist.] Mar. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (trial court’s order on untimely motion
    for new trial void); see also In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 
    250 S.W.3d 66
    , 72
    (Tex. 2008) (order granting new trial signed after trial court’s plenary power period
    expired void). This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of void orders. See
    2
    Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 
    372 S.W.3d 621
    , 623 (Tex. 2012)
    (“[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from
    void orders or judgments . . . .”); see also Castro, 
    2011 WL 1234382
    , at *1 (trial
    court’s void order “presents nothing for appellate review.”).
    On October 22, 2019, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice that this Court
    might dismiss Mills’s cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Mills filed a
    response within ten days of the notice explaining how this Court had jurisdiction
    over his cross-appeal. Mills did not adequately respond to the notice.
    Accordingly, we dismiss Mills’s cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss any pending motions related to the cross-
    appeal as moot. The appeal of appellant, Ashley Allessandria Holden, remains
    pending on the Court’s active docket.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.
    3