DENY; and Opinion Filed May 13, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00511-CV

IN RE JACQUELINE SUE BARR, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-22150

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Brown

In this original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court’s April 2, 2019 “Reformed 

and Amended Final Order” is void because it was rendered outside the trial court’s plenary period. 

Because we conclude the order is not void, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

Generally, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and the relator 

has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) 

(orig. proceeding). Mandamus will also lie to correct a void order. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 

S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding). Orders entered outside a trial court’s plenary 

power are void and are subject to mandamus relief. In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 

66, 68 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). A writ of mandamus is, thus, “appropriate to set aside an 

order for new trial that is granted after the court’s plenary power expires. . . .” In re Dickason, 987 

S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Absent a timely-filed motion for new trial, or a 

motion to vacate, modify, correct or reform a judgment, the trial court loses its plenary power over 
–2–

its judgment thirty days after the judgment is signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b; In re Lynd Co., 195 

S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding); Pipes v. Hemingway, 358 S.W.3d 438, 445 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). 

The underlying proceeding involved the modification of a divorce decree in a suit affecting 

the parent-child relationship. The parties reached an agreement on the modifications, and the trial 

court signed a “Final Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship” on January 17, 2019. 

The parties, however, disputed whether the form and substance of the January 17 final order 

conformed to their agreements. Real party in interest David Barr filed a “Motion for Partial New 

Trial and/or Motion to Reform the Judgment” on February 18, 2019. The trial court heard the 

motion for new trial on March 28, 2019, determined there was good cause to reform and amend 

the January 17 final order, and signed a “Reformed and Amended Final Order” on April 2, 2019. 

The deadline to file a motion for new trial was thirty days after the January 17, 2019 final 

order was signed, which fell on Saturday, February 16, 2019 and rolled to Monday, February 18, 

2019. TEX. R. CIV. P. 4, 329b(a). Barr electronically filed the motion for new trial on February 

18, 2019, but the filing was rejected by the clerk’s office because of an insufficient fee payment. 

The clerk’s office returned the filing to Barr’s counsel with instructions to resubmit with the proper 

filing fees by the close of business on February 21, 2019. Barr’s counsel attempted to re-file the 

motion on February 19, 2019, but those attempts were rejected by the clerk’s office due to incorrect 

or incomplete information. The clerk’s office instructed counsel to resubmit a corrected version 

within two business days. The motion was ultimately file-stamped on February 19, 2019. Relator 

maintains that the motion for new trial was, therefore, filed a day late and filed after the trial court’s 

plenary power expired on February 18, 2019. Relator further argues that, as a result, the 

“Reformed and Amended Final Order” signed on April 2, 2019 is void. We disagree. 
–3–

“The Texas Supreme Court’s overarching policy in approaching the unintentional errors of 

counsel is that cases should be decided on the merits rather than on a procedural default, when 

possible.” Texas Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Mersch, 418 S.W.3d 736, 742 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2011) 

(“Constitutional imperatives favor the determination of cases on their merits rather than on 

harmless procedural defaults.”)). “The electronic filing and service rules should not become a trap 

for the unwary when no harm is done.” Mersch, 418 S.W.3d at 742. The rules of civil procedure 

“provide a mechanism to promote the resolution of cases on their merits rather than procedural 

defaults resulting from clerical or technical mistakes.” See Krajca v. Caum, No. 01-16-00057-CV, 

2017 WL 2471102, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, pet. denied) (applying 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f)(6), which requires a party be given an extension of time to “complete” an

electronic filing if the document is “untimely due to a technical failure or system outage”). For 

example, under rule 21(f)(11), a clerk may reject a filing that does not conform to Rule 21 if the 

clerk identifies “the error to be corrected and state[s] a deadline for the party to resubmit the 

document in conforming format.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f)(11). 

Here, as contemplated by rule 21(f)(11), the clerk’s office rejected Barr’s timely-filed 

motion for new trial, first for insufficient fees and then for non-conformance, and provided a 

deadline for Barr to resubmit conforming documents. Barr paid the required filing fees and filed 

a conforming motion within the time ordered by the clerk’s office. Regardless of the clerk’s filestamp, the motion was timely-filed within the trial court’s plenary period when it was first 

transmitted to Barr’s electronic filing service provider on February 18, 2019. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

21(f)(5) (“An electronically filed document is deemed filed when transmitted to the filing party’s 

electronic filing service provider. . .”); see also Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. 2004) 

(“an instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether or 
–4–

not a file mark is placed on the instrument and regardless of whether the file mark gives some 

other date of filing.”) (internal citations omitted); Jamar v. Patterson, 868 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Tex. 

1993) (motion for new trial was conditionally filed when party tendered it to the clerk, that date 

controlled for appellate purposes, and the filing was completed when the party paid the filing fee); 

Mr. Penguin Tuxedo Rental & Sales, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 787 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex. 1990) (motion 

for new trial deemed filed even though petition was not file-stamped until after the deadline due 

to delay caused by courthouse employee). To hold otherwise would allow a court clerk’s decision 

to reject a filing, without more, to cause a party to lose its right to seek post-judgment and appellate 

relief. That is not the law in Texas. See, e.g., Warner, 135 S.W.3d at 684 (“Once a party has 

satisfied his duty to put a legal instrument in the custody and the control of the court clerk, he 

should not be penalized for errors made by the court clerk”).

Here, the motion for new trial was timely filed. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by considering and ruling on that motion, and the April 2, 2019 “Reformed and 

Amended Final Order” is not void. See, e.g., In re Bolster, No. 13-18-00134-CV, 2018 WL 

1192716, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 8, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying 

mandamus relief from order granting motion for new trial that was filed late due to technical 

failure). 

Relator has not established a right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the 

court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190511F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE