Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that a motion for new trial filed after a preceding motion for new trial has been overruled does not extend the trial court's plenary power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b. Although the second motion was filed within thirty days after judgment, the trial court's plenary power expired thirty days after it overruled the first motion. The court therefore denied Brookshire Grocery Company's petition for writ of mandamus and held that the later order granting a new trial was void.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a motion for new trial filed within thirty days after judgment, but after a preceding motion for new trial has been overruled, is timely under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b(e) so as to extend the trial court's plenary power.
- Whether the trial court had authority to grant Brookshire's second motion for new trial on February 1, 2005.
- Whether Brookshire's second motion for new trial should be treated as a motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment.
Holdings
- A motion for new trial filed after a preceding motion for new trial has been overruled is not timely for purposes of extending the trial court's plenary power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b(e), even if it is filed within thirty days of judgment and with leave of court.
- The trial court's plenary power expired on January 10, 2005, thirty days after it overruled Brookshire's first motion for new trial, and the February 1, 2005 order granting the second motion for new trial was void.
- The second motion for new trial could not be treated as a motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment because its substance and requested relief sought a new trial and vacation of the judgment, not modification, correction, or reformation.
Key quotations
“Because we hold that it does not, we deny relator Brookshire Grocery Company's petition for writ of mandamus.” (67)
“Therefore, an amended motion for new trial filed after the court has ruled on a prior motion is not "timely" for purposes of extending the trial court's plenary power under Rule 329b(e), even if leave of court is obtained and it is filed within thirty days of judgment.” (71)
“The February 1, 2005 order granting a new trial was signed after the court's plenary power period expired, and, therefore, that order was void.” (72)
Factual background
A jury returned a verdict for Barbara Goss in her tort action against Brookshire Grocery Company. Before judgment was signed, Brookshire filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an alternative motion for new trial. The trial court entered judgment conforming to the verdict and denied the motions on December 10, 2004. Brookshire filed a second motion for new trial twenty-nine days after judgment, and the trial court granted it after its first motion had already been overruled.
Procedural history
In the underlying tort action, a jury returned a verdict for Barbara Goss. Brookshire filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an alternative motion for new trial before judgment; the trial court signed judgment on December 9, 2004, and denied the motions on December 10. Brookshire filed a second motion for new trial on January 7, 2005, which the trial court granted on February 1. The court of appeals held that the trial court lacked plenary power to grant the second motion and ordered the trial court to vacate that order. The Texas Supreme Court denied Brookshire's petition for writ of mandamus.