The trial court in a Texas family law case has only a limited ability to change its judgment once its plenary power expires. Generally, plenary power lasts for thirty days from the date the final judgment is signed, but it may be extended if the court overrules certain motions or modifies the judgment while it still has plenary power.
In a recent case, a mother challenged the court’s authority to reform the judgment. According to the appeals court’s opinion, she had petitioned for the adjudication of the parentage of her child. Both the mother and the alleged father sought an order adjudicating him to be the child’s father.
The parties reached a partial agreement and went to trial on the remaining issues.
Trial Court’s Email After Final Trial
After the trial, the mother’s attorney filed a proposed order. The trial court subsequently sent an email with “. . .Rendition” in the subject line. The email stated the court’s findings and orders. It required the father to pay $270.50 in monthly medical support and the mother to provide health and dental insurance. The parties would split uninsured medical expenses. The court also awarded child support and attorney’s fees and costs to the mother. The court filed a copy of the email with the court clerk.
The mother proposed a “revised” final judgment, which the court signed on December 30. The trial judge’s term ended on December 31.
The father timely moved for modification, correction, and reform of the revised final judgment. He argued there were discrepancies between the court’s rendition and the revised final judgment. He argued the revised final judgment included terms the parties had not discussed or negotiated, including judgment for retroactive child support and an order for him to reimburse monthly insurance premiums. He sought attorney’s fees related to his motion and subsequently requested a new trial to address prospective child support and attorney’s fees.
The new judge signed a reformed final judgment, striking the provisions relating to retroactive child support and conditional appellate attorney’s fees.
The father moved for a partial new trial related to the reformed final judgment. The court signed a second reformed judgment and the father again moved for a partial new trial. His motion was overruled by operation of law, but the trial court awarded him attorney’s fees and costs related to reforming the judgment.
The mother argued the court erred in modifying the revised final judgment. She argued the successor judge did not have the authority to substantively change the order when doing so required a determination of facts, which did not occur.
Appellate Court Distinguishes Successor Judge’s Authority
The appeals court noted that a successor judge is not authorized to render judgment if they did not hear the evidence. Once a court has rendered judgment, however, a successor judge does have the authority to reduce the rendered judgment to writing. The issue, then, was whether the court’s email constituted a rendition of judgment and, if so, whether the modifications were faithful to it. A judgment may be rendered when the court officially announces its decision, whether it does so orally in court, by a memorandum filed with the clerk, or publicly announces it in some other way. If an email from the court is filed with the clerk and shows a clear intent to render judgment at the time, it may be a rendition of judgment. There is not a rendition of judgment if there are still essential issues pending when the court makes the pronouncement.
The mother argued the email did not address all claims or have language of finality. The appeals court noted that a signed judgment needs finality language, because it initiates deadlines for appeals and post-trial motions, but finality language is not necessarily required for a rendition.
The mother also argued that the email did not address retroactive child support or post-judgment attorney’s fees even though those issues had been tried. The appeals court found, however, that the email was not vague just because it did not list relief that it had not ordered. A rendition does not have to state the requested relief that the court denied. The appeals court noted that the absence of a statement denying any requested relief that was not requested did not prevent the email from constituting a rendition of judgment.
The mother also argued the email lacked specific information regarding the commencement of the suit, the trial, and child support. The appeals court noted there was no dispute regarding the date the suit was filed or the trial started. Without a specified date, the start of child support is determined by the date of the signed judgment.
The appeals court found the email completely disposed of the disputed facts that were tried. Additionally, a copy was filed with the court clerk. The appeals court therefore found the email was a rendition of judgment and that the second reformed final judgment was faithful to the judge’s resolution of the disputed facts. The successor judge had the authority to reduce the rendered judgment to writing and did so faithfully in the second reformed final judgment. The trial court did not err when it modified the revised final judgment.
The appeals court also rejected the mother’s challenge of the attorney’s fees awarded to the father. The mother argued the trial court’s plenary power had expired, but the appeals court found the plenary power was extended through the father’s motions and the court’s reformation of the judgment. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s final judgment.
Texas Family Law is Complex; Hire Experienced Attorneys to Help you Navigate the Law
In this case the appeals court found the trial court acted within its authority, but that is not always the case. If you are dealing with an issue involving parental adjudication or child custody, you need a skilled Texas child custody attorney on your side. Schedule a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.