### NUM BER 13-0 7-00 715- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
JA HA ZIEL R IOS, A pp ellan t,
v . STATE FA RM M UTUA L A U T OMOB IL E IN SU RA N C E C OMPA N Y, A p p el le e.

On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Garza M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Ap p e lla n t, Ja h a ziel Rio s, at te m p ts to ap p e a l a n o rd e r vac a ti n g a n o rd e r gra n ti n g a new tr ial i n hi s fav or . Cu rre n tl y p endi ng before the C our t i s a moti on fil ed by

appel lee , Stat e F ar m M utual Aut omobil e Ins urance Compan y , t o di smi ss this appeal for l ack of2

jurisdiction. Appe llee con ten ds tha t app ellantsh ould h ave a ppe aled t he f inal judgme nt in thi s c ause and c annot appeal an o rd er v acat ing a g ra nt of a n ew tr ial

. In c ontrast , a p p e l l a n ta s s e r

t s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s o rd e r v a c a t i n g t h e m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l w a s e r ro r . W e g ra nt ap pel lee ’s moti on and dis mis s t he appe al for l ack of jur is dicti on. Back g ro und O n M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l c o u rt s i g n e d a “ t a k e n o t h i n g ” j u d g me n t i n fa v or of app ellee. On Ap ril 13, 200 7, th e trial court signed a seco nd “take noth ing” judgme nt. T his sec o n d j u d g me n ti s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e fi rs tj u d g me n t , e x c e p tt h a tt h e s e c o n d j u d g me nt include s sig nat ures by counse l of record for the p arti e s i n d icating thatthe jud gmen t is “a pprov ed as to form onl y .” Ap pel lan t t imel y fil ed a moti on for new

tr ial

. On July 18, 200 7, th e trial co urt signed an orde r g rantin g the mot ion for new trial “i n the i nterestof jus ti ce and fair ness .” Ap pel lee m ov ed to vac ate that ord er on g ro unds that the t ri al cour

t’ s p len ar

y pl ow er had ex pired pr ior to that date. The t ri al cour t ag re ed, a nd on Oct obe r 29, 20 07, v acat ed th e orde r g rantin g the new trial fo r lack of jurisdiction. This appeal ens ued. On ap peal , app ell ee c ontends thatan o rd er v acat ing a g ra nt of a new tr ial is not a final j udg ment s ubj ectto appeal and appel lan t w as re q uired to appeal the final j udg ment in thi s matter

. Acc ordin g to ap pel lee , reg ardle ss of w hic h j udg ment c ontrols the appel lat e dea dlines, app ellant ’s not ice of app eal w as not time ly f iled. App ellee th us asse rts that th is appeal sh oul d be dis mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. In cont ra st, appel lan t as ser ts that the sec ond j udg ment re set the appel lat e ti metabl es and t he order v acat ing the order

g ra nti ng a ne w trial based on “w antof jurisdiction” w as in error.3 The Sec ond J udg ment A c hang e i n a j udg ment “ in any respect” i s a ll R ule 329b( h) req uires to r e se t t he appel lat e ti metabl e. T EX . R. C IV . P. 329b( h) ; see Naa m an v . G ri der , 126 S.W .3d 7 3, 74 (Tex . 200 3) ; L a n e B a n k Eq u i p . C o . v . S m it h S

. Eq u i

p . , Inc

. , 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 (T e x. 2000) ; Check v. Mitchell , 758 S.W .2d 7 55, 75 5 -5 6 ( T e x. 1988)

. In t he i nst ant c ase, the sec ond j udg ment i ncl udes the notati on that the judg ment is “ approv ed as to form only ” and is si g ned bycounsel of record. Acc ordin g ly , w e c alc ula te t he dead li nes from the sec ond jud g ment, w hic h w as si g ned on Apr il 13, 2007. If not de ter mined by

w ri tten order

sig ned w it hin se v enty -fiv e day s a fter t he j udg ment is si g ned, a moti on for new tr ial i s o v er ru led by

operati o n o f

law on t he ex pirati on of that per iod

. Tex . R. Ci v . P. 329b(c ). Acc ordin g ly , appell ant’ s motion for newtri al w as ov er ru led by op eratio n of

la w o n Jun e 28 , 200 7. Beca use a ppe llant tim ely f iled a m otion for new trial, the trial court had plena ry power to grant a new trial or t o v acat e, m odif y , correct, or reform the j udg ment unti l thi rty day s a fter t he moti on for new tr ial w as ov er ru led , ei ther by a w ri tten a n d s igned order

or by operati on of l aw , w hic hev er oc cur re d first. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 392b( e)

. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial cou rt ’s ple nar y pow er extended unti l Jul y

30, 2007. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 4 ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 .1( a)

. The tr ial co urt’ s o rd er g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial , s ig ned on J uly 18, w as is sued w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s p len ar y j ur is dicti on. Order Vac ati ng N ew

Tri al T he trial court en tered its order g rantin g a ne w trial w ithin th e pe riod of its plenary pow er . How ev er , t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er v acat ing the order

g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial w as not ent ered until Octob er 29, 2 007 , mo re than six mon ths after t h e e ntry of judgmen t in this matter

. A tr ial cour

t may not v acat e an order g ra nti ng a ne w tr ial outs ide the cour

t’ s p er iod4

of ple nar y pow er ov er the or ig ina l jud g ment. Porte r v. Vick , 8 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 9 , 7 8 9 -9 0 (T e x. 1994) ( per

cu ri am); In re Stei

ger , 55 S.W .3d 168, 170- 71 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, or ig . proceed ing ). An order v acat ing the order

granti ng a new

tri al thatis s ig ned after the plen arypower period has expired is “v oid.” Por ter , 888 S.W .2d a t 789

. W e hol d tha t t he tr ial co urt' s Oct ober 29, 2007 order

is a v oid order

thatpur por

ts to "u ngrant" a previ ously g rante d n e w t ri a l. Be cause thatorder is v oid, th e trial court's last effect iv e orde r is it s J uly 18, 2007 order

g ra nti ng appel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial “ in the int erestof jus ti ce and fair ness ,” w hic h i s n ot ap peal abl e. See Wil ki ns v. Me thodi

st Hea lt h Care Sys. , 1 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 3 ( Te x . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ E x c e p t i n v e r y l i mi t e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s , an orde r granting a m otion for n ew trial ren dere d w ithin the p eriod of t he trial court's plen ary pow er i s n ot rev iew abl e on appeal .” ). Accordin gly , the app eal is hereb y DISMISSED FOR W ANT OF JUR ISDICT ION. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .3(a). App ellee’s m otion for extension o f t ime t o f ile its brief

in this ma tt er i s D IS M IS SE D A S M OO T. PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and fil ed th is the 27th day of Ma rc h, 20 08.