NO. 07-08 -005 0-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER8, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ T HE ST AT E OF TE XAS, APPE LLA NT

v. CH APM AN C HI LDR EN ’S TRU ST I, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 O F P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO. 8110 6-1; HON. W . F. CORKY ROBERT S, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Memorandum Opinion Appel lan t, the S tate of Tex as, br ing s a rest ri cte d appeal of an order cl ar ify ing and enforcing a prior ag reed judgmen t betw een it and a ppe llee the Chapm an Children ’s Trust I. F ind ing the tr ial co urt ex ceede d i ts a u thori ty i n render ing the order , and the er ro r apparent o n the face of the re cord, w e v acat e the order .C oul ter i s a st re et of the ci ty

of Amar il lo. 1 The Trus t’ s moti on outl ine d efforts made to dis cus s impl ementati on of the ag re ed 2 jud g ment w it h represent ati v es of the Tex as Depa rt ment of T ra nspor

tati on ( “Tx DO T”) , and sta ted t he Tr ust ’s co unsel had re cei v ed no re spons e from c ounse l for Tx DO T. 2 Back g ro und On N ov e m b e r 16, 2 000, the t ri al cour t s ig ned an ag re ed j udg ment i n a conde mnati on proceed ing broug ht by the Stat e ag ain st the Tr ust , in whic h the Stat e acq uired land for

constr uct ion of

a par t of Loop Hi g hw ay

335 near

Amari ll o. The ag re ed judgme nt de term ined the com pen sat io n t o b e pa id by the State , and add ressed f utu re cons tr uct ion ev ents . Among othe r thi ng s, the j udg ment prov ide d: [T he T rust] w ill gi ve all nece ssaryrig ht-of-w ay for one w ay f ronta ge roads, tur naround un der

the BN SF Rai lw ay

Br idg e and future Cou lt er Street int erchang e w it h Loop Hi g hw ay 335, eac h to be bui ltby Tx DO T, at [the Stat e’s ] c osts, i n t he area ag re ed to by Georg e C hapman and Tx DO T as needed. Con tendi ng the Cou lt er Street i nterchang e w it h Loop 335 had b ecome “n eeded”

1 and t he St ate refused to tak e ac ti on, the Trus t fil ed a moti on to clari fy and enforc e the 2 ag re ed j udg ment on Febr uar y 23, 2007. By

order si g ned M arch 30, t he cour t s et t he hear ing for J une 4. The Trus t app eared for the h ear ing on J une 4 but t he St ate w as absen t. After inq uir ing of the S tate’ s a bsenc e, t he tr ial cou rtr e ce ived ev ide nce on th e mer it s o f the mo tion. It the n too k the ma tter under adv isem ent . Th e trial court signed an order on Ju lyAl thoug h the Sta te’ s n oti ce of res tr icted a ppeal w as not fil ed w it hin si x months of 3 J u ly 5 , 2 0 0 7 , Ru le 2 6 . 1 (c ), itwa s f il e d wit h in t h e f ift e e n -d a y gra c e p e ri o d o f Ru le 2 6 . 3 . T e x. R. App. P. 26. 1(c) & 26.3 . On the State ’s mo tion unde r Rule 26. 3(b), w e foun d its notice time ly . Te x . R. App. P. 26. 3(b). 3 5 g ra nti ng reli ef in fav or of the Tr ust . No post -t ri al moti ons w ere filed . T h e S ta te f il ed a noti ce of res tr icted a ppeal on J anuar y 23, 2008. 3 Di sc uss ion A party filing a restricted ap p e a l m u s tdem onst rate th at: (1) it app eale d w ithin six months of jud g ment, (2 ) w as a par ty to the s uit , ( 3) di d notpar ti ci pate in the a ctu al tr ial of the c ase, and (4 ) er ror appears o n the face of the re cord. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 30; Quaes tor

Inv ., Inc . v . Chiapas, 997 S. W .2d 226, 227 ( Tex . 199 9) . The req uirements for a rest ri cte d appea l are jur is dicti onal and if not est abl is hed w il l precl ude the ri g ht of a par ty to s eek re li ef throug h a rest ri cte d appea l. Cl opton v. Pak, 66 S. W .3d 5 13, 5 15 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth 20 01, pet. den ied). Here, the State’ s noti ce of re str icted appeal w as ti mely f il ed, the St ate w as a par ty to th e suit, an d it did no t partici p a t e i n t he Ju ne 4 hea ring. T he o nly issue in dispu te is w hethe r e rror a ppears o n the face of the re cord. The face of the re cord for pur poses of re str icted appeal inc lud es all papers on file in the appeal , inc lud ing the cl er k’ s record and any repor ter ’s record. See D S C F i n . C o r p . v . Mo ffitt, 815 S. W .2d 5 51, 5 51 ( Tex . 199 1) (w rit of error appe al). Accordin g to th e Sta te, the followi ng e rrors ap pea r on t he face of the reco rd: (1) it did not recei v e notic e of the hear ing of

the moti on; (2) i t di d notrecei v e s tatut or y noti ce ofTe x . Civ . Prac. & Rem . Code Ann. § 39.0 01 (Ve rnon 200 8). 4 4 int ent t o tak e a d efault judg ment aga ins t the State ; and (3) the Jul y 5 order ex ceede d the 4 cour t’ s p ow er to enforc e i ts jud g ment. W e address onl y i ts thi rd co ntent ion . The nub of the Sta te’ s a rg ument i s t he J uly 5 order w as not a proper

ex erci se of the cour t’ s i nhe re n t p ow er

to enforc e the ag re ed j udg ment bec ause itco nst it uted a mater ial chang e o f

a su bst anti al adj udi cat ed matt er i n the ag re ed j udg ment. Ins tead, the Stat e argues, the July

5 order w as a mo dif ication of the agreed judgmen t, w hich th e trial court lon g ag o l ostpl enar

y pow er to re nder . W e ag re e. A tr i al c ou rt po s s es s es p l en ar y p ow er t o v ac at e, mo di fy , correct, o r refo r m a jud gm ent w it hin thi rty

day s o f the day

the jud g ment w as si g ned. See Tex . R . C iv . P. 329 b(d). A s a g e n e ra l rule, judicial action taken bya court after the lapse of its plenary pow er i s a nul li ty . S ta te e x r e l. L a tt y v. Owens, 9 0 7 S. W .2d 4 84, 4 86 ( Tex . 199 5) . But ev er y co urt pos ses si ng j ur is dicti on to render a j udg ment has power, v ia Rul e 308, and inh erent p ow er

to enforc e i ts jud g ments bey ond i ts ple nar y pow er . Tex . R . Ci v . P. 308 (“ [t] he c our

t s hal l caus e i ts ju dg ments and de crees to be ca rr ied i nto e x ecut ion ... .” ); Ar ndt v. Far ri s, 633 S. W .2d 4 97, 4 99 ( Tex . 198 2) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (“ [t] he ge n e ra l ru le is that ev er y co urt hav ing j ur is dicti on to render a j udg ment has the inh erent pow er to enforc e i ts jud g ments. ”) . Enforc ement o rd e rs, h ow ev er , may not be i ncons is tent w it h the or ig ina l jud g ment and mustnot cons ti tute a mater ial ch ang e i n s ubst anti al adj udi cat ed por ti ons of the j udg ment. Ha r

r i s C o u n t y A pp r a i s a l D i s t. v . We st, 708 S. W .2d 8 93, 8 96 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [14 th Dist.] 19 86, orig . procee ding) ( citing Variou s Oppo rtunitie s, Inc.G. R. C hapman Li mite d Par tnershi p i s s ucc ess or

i n i nterestto the Tr ust . 5 5 v. Sul li van Inv est m ents, Inc. , 677 S.W .2d 115 , 11 8 ( T ex.App. –Dallas 19 84, no w rit); Rey nolds v. Har

ri son, 635 S. W .2d 8 45, 8 46 ( Tex .A p p .– T yler1982, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ). A p o s t - j u d g me n te n fo r c e me n to rd e r m a y n o ta d d o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h o s e re q u i re d b y the jud g ment. Bank One, N. A. v. W ohl fahr t, 193 S.W .3d 190 , 194 -95 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1st Dist.] 200 6, no pet. ). T he St ate cites several p ro vis io n s of the July 5 order thatit conten ds ma terially chang ed th e ter ms of the ag re ed j udg ment. W e need address onl y one. The Jul y 5 order i nco rp o rates a N ov ember 7, 2006, Ci ty

/D ev elo per

Par ti ci pati on Ag re emen t b e tw een t he C ity of Amar il lo and G .R . C hapman Li mite d Par tnershi p. The

5 orde r fu rther requires:
cons tr uct ion of the o v er pass and the one- w ay front ag e roads at t he C oul ter Street int er chang e w it h Loop Hi g hw ay 335, i n c onnec ti on w it h the cons tr uct ion of Cou lt er

Street n orth t o i ts int ersec ti on w it h Loop Hi g hw ay 335 under the prov is ion s o f the ter ms o f t h at on e c ertai n C ITY/D EVELO PER PART ICIPAT ION AGREEMENT date d Novembe r 7, 200 6, by an (sic) betw een t he C ity

of Amar il lo, Tex as and GR Chap man Limit ed Par tnershi p. Not hi n g i n t h e 2 0 0 0 a g re e d j u d g me n t re q uires cons tr uct ion of cont emplat ed hi g hw ay i mp ro v e me n t s i n c o n n ect ion w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n o f C o u l t e r S t re e ta c c o rd i n g t o t e r ms o f a then- nonex is tent ag re ement t o w hic h the Sta te i s n ot a par ty . W e find that prov is ion of the J uly 5 order i s a lon e suff ic ien t to consti tute a mater ial chang e i n the ter ms of

the ag re ed j udg ment. Bec ause no pos t- tr ial moti ons w ere fil ed, t heTe x . R. Civ . P. 32 9b(d ). 6 6 ple nar y pow er of the tr ial cour

t t o modi fy, co rrector

reform the ag re ed j udg ment ex pired thi rty day s fol low ing i ts si g nin g . The Jul y 5 order ex ceede d the extent of the c our t’ s p ow er 6 to en force it s e x is ti ng orders, and i s v oid . Owens, 907 S.W .2d at 486 . Th is error app ears on th e face o f

the reco rd for ma intain ing the restricted a ppe al. Accordin gly , w e v acat e the trial court’s July 5 order. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice