## COURT OF A PPEAL S

EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS

ELPASO, TEXAS

ROY PAULPL ATTEL

,

Appellant,

v.

EMI L Y L YNNE L ARI MORE,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08-09-00210- CV

Appea l from the

43rd District Court

of Parke r County , Texas

(TC# CV07-2156)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION

Pending befor e this Court is Appellee ’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s restric ted appea l. We

g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l.

On Dec ember 15, 2008, the trial court enter ed a defa ult j u dg ment in favor of Appellee

.

Appellant then filed a motion for new trial and motion for remittitur on J anuar y 14, 2009. The trial

1

A l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n s w e r e f i l e

- m a r k e d b y t h e c l e r k f o r J a n u a r y 2 0

, 2 0 0 9

, 1

i t w a s d e e m e d f

i l e d o n J a n u a r y 1 4

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e d a y h e d e p o s i t e d t h e m o t i o n s i n t h e m a i l

. S e e T E X

. R

. C IV

. P

. 5 ( “ I f a n y d o c u m e n t i s s e n t t o t h e p r o p e r c l e r k b y f i r s t

- c l a s s U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l i n a n e n v e l o p e o r w r a p p e r p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d

a n d s t a m p e d a n d i s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e m a i l o n o r b e f o r e t h e l a s t d a y f

o r f i l i n g s a m e , t h e s a m e , i f r e c e i v e d b y t h e c l e r k

n o t m o r e t h a n t e n d a y s t a r d i l y , s h a l l b e f i l e d b y t h e c l e r k a n d b e d e e m e d f i l e d i n t i m e

. ” ) ; s e e a l

s o B e a r d v

. B e a r d

, 4 9

S

. W

. 3 d 4 0

, 5 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. – W a c o 2 0 0 1

, p e t

. d e n i e d ) ( f i n d i n g m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l t i m e l y w h e n d e p o s i t e d i n m a i l o n d a y i t w a s d u e )

. A p p e l l a n t

, h o w e v e r , a r g u e s t h a t h i s m o t i o n s w e r e n o t t i m e l y f i l e d

. C o n c e r n i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r n e w

t r i a l

, A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e f i l i n g w a s r e j e c t e d b y t h e c l e r k s i n c e h e f a i l e d t o p a y t h e f

i l i n g f e e a n d h i s a f

f i d a v i t o f

i n d i g e n c e w a s d e f

i c i e n t

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n i s n o t f o u n d i n t h e r e c o r d

, b u t r a t h e r i n a n a f f i d a v i t h e f

i l e d w i t h t h i s
C o u r t a t t h e t i m e h e f

i l e d h i s b r i e f

. W e m a y n o t c o n s i d e r A p p e l l a n t ’ s a f f i d a v i t a s t h a t i s a m a t t e r o u t s i d e t h e

a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d

. S i e

f k a s v

. S i e f k a s , 9 0 2 S

. W

. 2 d 7 2

, 7 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. – E l P a s o 1 9 9 5

, n o p e t

. ) ( “ I t i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t

,

w i t h l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s n o t m a t e r i a l h e r e , a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t m a y n o t c o n s i d e r m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d

. T h a t r e c o r d c o n s i s t s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t a n d

, w h e r e n e c e s s a r y , a s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t s

. M a t e r i a l o u t s i d e t h e r e c o r d t h a t i s i m p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e d i n o r a t t a c h e d t o a p a r t y ’ s b r i e f m a y b e s t r i c k e n

. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. I n a s m u c h a s A p p e l l e e

r e q u e s t s t h a t w e s t r i k e A p p e l l a n t ’ s a f f i d a v i t

, w e d o s o

. F u r t h e r , t h e c l e r k ’ s r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n w a s

s t a m p e d f

i l e d

, a n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d

, o t h e r t h a n A p p e l l a n t ’ s s t a t e m e n t s , c o n t r a d i c t s t h a t f i l i n g

. A l t h o u g h

A p p e l l a n t m a y c l a i m t h a t t h e m o t i o n w a s n o t f i l e d b e c a u s e t h e f

i l i n g f e e w a s n o t p a i d

, a m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l

t e n d e r e d w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y f i l i n g f e e i s s t i l l c o n d i t i o n a l l y f i l e d w h e n i t i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c l e r k

. S e e G a r z a v

. G a r c i a
, 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6

, 3 7

- 3 8 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 4 )

. A n d e v e n i f A p p e l l a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t w a s m e r i t o r i o u s , A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r r e m i t t i t u r d i d n o t r e q u i r e a f i l i n g f e e , a n d A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s n o a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e r e m i t t i t u r m o t i o n w a s n o t t i m e l y f i l e d

. S e e T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 5 1

. 3 1 7 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( r e m i t t i t u r m o t i o n n o t l i s t e d a s a m o t i o n t h a t

r e q u i r e s a f

i l i n g f e e )

.

## court did not rule on either motion. On J une 15, 2009, Appellant filed his notice of restric ted appea l.

A restric ted appea l is a direc t attack on a judgme nt. Herc ules Concrete Pumping Serv., Inc.

v. Bencon Mgmt. & Gen. Cont racting Cor p

. , 62 S.W .3d 308, 309 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.]

2001, pet. denied) . Rule 30 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure pr ovides:

A party who did not participa te – either in person or throug h counsel
– in the hear ing
that resulted in the judgme nt co mplained of and who did not timely file a postjudgment motion or reque st for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, or a notice of appeal within the time permitted by Rule 26.1(a)

, may file a notice of

appea l within the tim e per mitted by Rule 26.1(c)

.

T E X



## . R

. A P P



## . P

. 30. To direc tly attack a judgme nt by restric ted appea l, (1) the appea l must be

broug ht within six months afte r the trial court signe d the judgme nt, (2) by a party to the suit, (3) who

did not participa te in the hear ing that resulted in the judgme nt complained of, (4) who did not timely

file a postjudgment motion, a reque st for finding s of fac t and conc l u s i o n s o f l aw, or a notice of

appea l, and (5) the err or complained of that shows the invalidity of the judgme nt is appar ent on the

fac e of the rec ord. See T E X



## . C I V



## . P R A C



## . & R E M



## . C O D E 

## A N N



## . § 51.013 (Ve rnon 2008); T E X



## . R. A P P



## .

P. 30; Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co.

, 955 S.W .2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997). I f a party

timely files a post-judg ment motion, a restricte d appea l is not available

. See In re Estate of Head

,

165 S.W .3d 897, 902-03 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (motion to rec onsider su m m ar y

judgme nt); S.P. Dorman Exploration Co., L.P. v. Mi t chell Energy Co., L.P.

, 71 S.W .3d 469, 470

(Tex. App.–Waco 2002, no pet.) ( motion for new tria l).

Be cause Appellant timely filed two postjudgment motions, that is, a motion for new trial and

motion for remittitur, a restric ted appea l was simply not available to him. See W olf v. Andreas

, 276

S.W .3d 23, 25 (Tex. A

pp.–El Paso 2008, pet. withdrawn) (“I f a pa rty timely files a post-judgme nt

motion, a restric ted appea l is not available .”); Laboratory Corp. of A merica v. Mid-Town Surgical

C en t er , 1 6 S.W .3d 527, 528 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2000, no pet.) (“B eca use appellant timely filed a

## postjudgment motion, rule 30 does not pe rmit a ppellant to br ing a

restric ted appe al.”) . There fore

,

Appellant had to file his notice of appea l within ninety day s afte r the trial court signe d the judgme nt,

which he failed to do. See T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P. 26.1(a) (1); Thomas v. Texas Dep’t o f C r i mi nal

Justice- Institutional Div.

, 3 S.W .3d 665, 666-67 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 1999, no pet.).

Acc ording ly , we g rant Appe llee’s motion and dismiss thi s appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice

Dec ember

30, 2009

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.