1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2004- CI

- 03638 , s t y l ed L o r i E. Wh i t e v . We l ls Fa r g o Ba n k , N. A. a n d L o n g h o rn A sset R ec o ve ry , pendi ng i n t he 15 0t h J udi ci al D i s t r i ct Co ur t , B exa r C ount y , T exa s , t he H onorabl e Ja net Lit t l ejo hn, p res i d i ng. H o wever, t he o rders co m p l ai ned o f were si gned b y t he H o no rable M art ha T anner, presi d i ng judge o f t he 1 6 6 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, and t he H o no rable So l o m o n J. C ass eb , II I , presi d i ng judge o f t h e 2 8 8 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No . 0 4- 09 -0 01 08 -C V IN RE L or i WHI TE Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 10, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS CONDI TI ONAL L Y GRANTED Relator L ori Whit e (“ Whit e”) filed a petition f or writ of mandamus, see king to c ompel the trial court ( 1) to vac ate its Fe bruar y 10, 2009 o rd er de nying r elator’ s plea to the jurisdiction and g ra nt t he ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n, and

(2 ) to va c ate its F e br

ua ry 10 , 200 9 ord e r g ra

nti nga ne w tri a l. On May 6, 2009, this c ourt hear d oral argument. Be cause we c onclude the tr ial court wa s without jurisdiction to gra

nt the motion for new tria l, we conditionally g rant manda

mus relief.04

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

2 ... T h e n , o n J u ly 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , W h ite fil e d a se c o n d law su it a g a ins t b o th L o n g h o rn a n d W e lls F a rg o F ina n c ia l. W el l s Far go Fi nan ci al was p r op er l y ser ved and f i l ed an an s wer . H owever , af t er sev er al ye ar s t he cas e wa s di s mi s s ed fo r w a n t o f p ro se c u tio n .

- 2- BACK GR OUND The unde rlying suit wa s filed by Whit e ag ainst L ong horn Asset Rec overy (“L ong horn”) and Wells Farg o Ba

nk, N.A., joint and seve rally , for the wrong ful repo s s essi on of her vehicle. T he parties do not dispute that ser vice on W el l s Fa rgo Bank, N.A. wa s defe ctive. Ac cordingto the
a ff ida vit of Sha nn on D. Ga us man, in- ho us e c ouns e l f or Wel ls F arg o F ina

nc ia l Co mpa

ny , Inc . in I owa, she lear

ned of the lawsuit ag ainst Wells F arg o Ba nk, N.A. afte r Whit e’s counsel faxed a copy
o f t h e p et i t i o nt o i n -h o u s e c o un s el fo r W el l s Fargo Fi n an c i a l A c c ep t an ce , In c. (“ W el l s Fa rgo Financ ial”) in Pennsylvania. On Ma rch 30, 2004, G ausman asser ts she spoke with Whit e’s c ounsel and informe d her that Whi te had su ed t he incor rec t Wells Fa

rg o entity , Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. Acc ordingto Gausman, White’s counsel infor med h er t h at she would ser ve the c orre ct entity

and either dismiss or nonsuit Wells Fa rg o Ba nk, N.A. Howeve r, on April 5, 2004, the trial court g rante d two separ ate de fault judg ments ag ainst Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. and L ong horn pursuant to White’s reque st. Whit e’s counsel then fil ed a cer tificate of last known addre ss with the trial court, listing the same incor

rec t addre ss Whi te’s counse l had used on t he orig inal cer tificate of service . Gausman
a sse rt s Whi te ’s c ouns e l ne ve r i nf or me d h e r t hat a defa ult

jud g me nt h a d b e e n ta

ke n a g a ins t We lls Fa rg o Ba nk, N.A., nor did White’s counsel e ver se nd a copy of the judg ment to her. 2 Wel ls F arg o B ank , N .A
. a lle g e s it did no t di sc ov e r t he de fa ult jud g me nt t ake n a g a ins t it un til J une 30, 2008. On J uly 16, 2008, Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. filed a

bill of review, se ekingto set aside the def ault judgme nt and to obtain a new trial. Acc ordingto the parties, the bi ll of re view re mains04

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

- 3- pendingin the trial court. The n, on October 6, 2008, Wells F arg o Ba

nk, N.A. filed a

Motion to S et Aside De fault Judgment and f or Ne w Trial. On D ece mber 9, 2008, W hite filed a r esponse to the motion to s et aside the def ault judgme nt and filed a

plea to the jurisdiction. On January 30, 2009, J udg e T an n e r d e n ie d Wh it e ’ s p le a to th e ju r is d ic ti o n . T h e s ame d ay , a f te r Wh it e s ti p u lated that service on Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. wa s defe cti v e, J u d ge C asseb, I I Ig rante d Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A.’s motion to set aside the de fault judg ment ag ainst Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. and grante d a new trial. This petition for writ of manda mus ensued. AN AL YSI S Whit e asse rts the def

ault judgme nts taken ag ainst L ong horn and Wells Fa rgo Ba n k , N.A. constitute a final judg ment. There fore , Whit e asserts the order t hat set aside the defa ult judgment taken a g ainst Wells Fa

rg o Ba nk, N.A. and g rante d a new trial is void beca use t he trial c ourt lacke d jurisdiction. As a result, W hite contends the tria l court er red in de nying he r plea

to the jurisdiction and in g rantinga new

trial. A. Availabili ty of Mandam us Relief Mandamus will issue only to corre ct a c lear

abuse of discretion for which the r elator ha s no adequate re medy

at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 1 4 8 S
. W
. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 5 (T ex . 2 0 0 4 ) ( o ri g. pr oc e e din g ); W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (Te x . 1992) (or ig. pr ocee ding) . Howeve r, wh e n a n o rd e r o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is v oid , man damus re lie f is av a ila ble re g ard le ss o f whe the r t he re is an ade quate r emedy

by appea l. In re Vlasak, 141 S.W .3d 233, 235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004,
o ri g. p ro ce ed i n g) ( ci t i n g Di k e ma n v . S

ne ll , 4 90 S.W. 2d

18 3, 18 6 ( Te x. 19 73 )) . “ Ma nd amus is appropr iate to set aside a

n order for new trial that is g rante d afte r the c ourt’s plena ry power expires04

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

- 4- an d th at i s , th e r e f

o re, void.” In re Dic kason , 987 S.W .2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998). Ther efor e, mandamus re lief is available to reviewthe orde r g rantinga new trial that Whit e conte nds is void. B. Fina lit

y of the Jud gment s The va lidity

of the trial c ourt’s orde r setting aside the def ault judgme nt and g rantinga new trial depe nds on whether the def ault judgme nts constitute a final judg ment which tri ggere d the deadlines f

or appe al. “I f the de fault judg ment is interlocutory , the t ri al cour t ‘reta ins continuing control . . . and ha s the power to set [i t] aside a

ny time before a fina l judgment is ente red.’ ” In reBr o Bro Props., Inc. , 50 S.W .3 d 5 2 8 , 530 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, orig . proce eding[m and. d en i ed ] ) ( qu o t i n g Frue ha uf C or p. v . Ca rri llo , 848 S.W .2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993)). Howe ver, “ if the defa ult judgment is final, the tria l court’s jurisdiction expired thirty day s afte r t he date the judg ment was sig ned.” Id. A def

ault judgme nt is not presumed final. Ho uston He alt h Club s, In c . v . F

irs t Cou rt o f A pp e als , 722 S.W. 2d 69 2, 69 3 (T e x. 19 86 ). “ [T]o be fi na l a judg me nt mus t disp os e of a ll issues and parties in a c ase.” Ne. Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Aldridge , 400 S.W .2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). A f ina l ju dg me nt m ay

c on sis t of se ve ra l or de rs tha

t c umu lativ e ly dis po se of a ll the pa rt ie s and iss ue s. Tex. Sting, Ltd. v. R.B

. F o o ds, Inc. , 8 2 S. W.3 d 6 44 , 6 48 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 02 , p e t. denied)
. The de fault judg ments in this case ar e conta ined in two separ ate judgments. Therefor e, the issue befor e this court is whethe r the two de fault j u d gm en t s taken tog ether constitute a final judgme nt that disposed of all issues and parties in the underlying suit. One defa ult judgment holds Wells F arg o Ba

nk, N.A. liable for $2,050,070.97, plus inter est, only mentioning L on gh o rn i n the sty le of the c a se . Th e oth e r de fa ult jud g me nt hol ds L on g ho rn lia ble fo r $2, 05 0, 07 0. 97 , p lus int e re st,04

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

- 5- on ly me nti on ingWel ls F arg o B ank , N .A . in the sty le of th e c a se . B oth

jud g me nts pr ov ide “ [t]his judgme nt is final, disposes of all claims and a ll parties, and is appe alable.” Whit e conte nds the two defa ul t j u d gm en ts, when take n toge ther, dispose of a ll issues and both pa rties, L ong horn and Wells F arg o Ba nk, N.A. As a result, Whit e conclude s that t h e t wo jud g me nts take n to g e the r c on sti tut e a fi na l and a pp e a la ble jud g me nt. On the oth e r h and , We lls F arg o B ank , N .A . a sse rt s th at e a c h d e fa ult jud g me nt i s in div idu a lly fi na l be c a us e on e jud g me nt d isp os e s o f a ll p art ie s and c la ims by a sse ssi nga ll dama g e s a g a ins t We lls Fa rg o Ba nk, N.A. and holds L ong horn har mless, while the other judgme nt disposes of all parties a nd
c la ims by a ssessi ng all dama g e s a g a ins t L on g ho rn and ho lds Wel ls F arg o B ank , N .A . h arm le ss. Wells Farg o Ba

nk, N.A. asse rts that the inclusion of the languag e, “T his judgment is final, disposes of a ll c la ims and

a ll p art ie s, and

is a pp e a la ble ,” disp os es of

a ll p art ie s in

e a c h d e fa

ult jud g me nt. S p ecif ically , Wells Farg o Ba

nk, N.A. re lies on Lehmann , to th e e xte n t t h at i t h o ld s th at “ [a] state me nt l ike , ‘T his jud g me nt fi na lly dis po se s o f a ll p art ie s and a ll c la ims and

is a pp e a la ble ’, wo uld leave no doubt a

bout the court’s intention.” See Lehm ann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 206 (T e x. 20 01 ). Th e re fo re , Well s Fa rg o Ba nk , N.A . co nte nd s th at th e tw o ju dg me nts are inc on sis te nt, and b e c a u s e th e r e is n o th in g in th e r e c o r d to in d ic ate w h ic h f in a l ju d g me n t w a s s ign e d first, the judgme nts are inter l o cu t o ry and not final. See H

ammett v. Lee , 7 3 0 S. W. 2 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 1 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 1987, writ dism’d w.o.j.). We d o n o t a g r e e w it

hWe ll s F ar g o B an k , N
. A
. th at t h e f in a li ty la n g u a g e in e a c hju d g me nt alone make s eac h judgme nt individually final. In Lehmann , the Tex as S upreme Court also provided that “ a jud g me nt i ssu e d w ith out a c onve nti on a l tr ia l is fi na l f or purp os e s o f app eal if

and on ly if04

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

3 ... B e c a u se w e d is agree wi t h W el l s Fa rgo B ank, N
. A
. t hat each i nd i vi d ual de f aul t judgm ent i s f

i nal and b e c a u se w e ha v e c o n c lud e d th e tw o d e fau lt ju d g m e n ts ta k e n to g e the r c o n stitute d a fin a l j u d g m e n t, it i s n o t ne c e ssa ry to fur the r a d d re ss W e lls F a rg o B a n k , N .A .’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e two d e fau lt ju d g m e n ts a re inc o n siste n t. W e w o u ld o n ly n ee d t o co nsi d er whet her t he d ef aul t judgm ent s are i nco nsi st ent i f we had agreed wi t h W el l s Fa rgo B ank, N
. A
. t hat t here were tw o fi n a l ju d g m e n ts re n d e re d in the un d e rlying p ro c e e d ing
.

- 6- either it ac tually

disposes of all cla ims and parties then be fore the cour t, reg ardle ss of its langua g e, or it states wi th unmist akable clar ity that it is a final judgme nt as to all claims and all par ties.” Lehmann , 39 S.W .3d at 192-93. The court in Lehman went on to say that “[a]n order that disposes of cla ims . . . ag ainst one of multiple defe ndants does not adjudica t e cl ai m s b y or ag ainst other parties.” Id. at 205. At least on e oth e r c ourt

ha s h e ld t

hat th e langua g e “ [t]his jud g me nt f ina lly dis po se s o f a ll claims and pa

rties and is appe alable,” did not make the judg ment final bec ause the order did not addre ss one of the pa

rty ’s cr oss claims. Se e Ba in v . B ain , No. 02-06-00215-CV, 2007 WL174463,
at * 1 ( T e x. Ap p . —F o rt Wo rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ) ( me m. o p . )
. T h e r e f o r e , th e c o urt c o n c lu d e d th at the judgme nt did not actually dispose of all cla ims and parties be fore the court, even though it contained the finality

languag e re cog nized in Lehmann
. See id. I f w e w er e t o ac ce p t W el l s Fargo Ban k , N. A. ’s ar gu m en t , th en th e i n cl u s i o no f t h e l an gu age “This j u d g ment is final, disposes of all claims and a ll parties, and is appe alable” would make a jud g me nt f

ina l w ith out c on sid e ri ngwh e the r t he jud g me nt a c tua lly

dis po se d o f a ll c la ims and pa rt ie s. We do not ag ree with Wells Fa rgo Bank, N.A.’s c ontention. There fore , we c onclude that the inclusion of “[t] his judg ment is f inal, disposes of all cla ims and all parties, a nd is appea lable” in e ach defa ult judgment did not make eac h individual judg ment final bec ause e ach judg ment taken a lone did no t a dju dic ate a ll o f t

he c la ims a g a ins t a ll o f t

he pa rt ie s. 304

- 09

- 00 10 8- CV

- 7- There fore , we c o n cl ude the two de fault judg ments taken tog ether constituted a final a

nd
a pp e a la ble jud g me nt and the tr ia l c ourt los t pl e na ry po we r t hir ty da y s a ft e r t he date the tw o d e fa

ult jud g me nts we re signe d. As a res ul t, th e tr ia l c ourt la c ke d ju

ri sd ic tio n to se t a sid e the de fa ult judgme nt taken ag ainst Wells Farg o Ba nk, N.A. and to grant a new trial more than f our y ear s after the tr ia l court los t jur isd ic tio n. B e c a us e the tr ia l c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to c on sid e r t

he Mo tio n to Set A side Def

ault J udg ment and for New Trial, the trial court improperly denied Whit e’s plea to the jurisdiction. CO NC LU SION Acc ording ly , we c onditionally g rant the writ of m andamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court f

ails within 10 day s to (1) vacate its Februa ry 10, 2009 order

denying r elator’ s plea to the jurisdiction, (2) gr ant t he plea to the j urisdiction, and (3) vacate i ts Fe bruar y 10, 2009 order

setting aside the de fault judg ment and g rantinga new trial.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice