## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00139

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Tarrant County, Texa s Trial Court No. 2021 -0 0612 2-2

B efore Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach, J.; and Lee Gabriel (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment) Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach 

### D E 

### L AGE 

### L ANDEN 

### F INANCIAL 

### S ERVICES 

### , I NC



### . , Appellant

V



### . M.D.H. O ILF IELD 

### S ERVICES 

### LLC AND 

### M I CHAE L 

### H IL B URN 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Tex.
Civ. Prac. & R em. Code A nn. § § 35 .001

– .008 (UEFJA) . On October 20, 20 21 , D e Lage L anden Financial Services, Inc. (DL ) filed a document in the trial court entitled “Affidavit of Filing Foreign Judgment ” with multiple attachments

. No respon sive pleading was filed b y defenda nts M.D. H. Oilfield Ser v

i ces LLC and Michael Hi lburn (Appellees) until Febru ary 23, 2022 , when they filed a motion to vacate , followed by
an amended motion to vacate on Mar ch 15, 2022

. DL responded , in part, by challenging the trial co urt ’ s plenary jurisdiction to rule on the motion to vacate
because it had not been filed within thirty d ays after the filing of th e Affida vit. A visiting judge held a hearing on the motion to vacate and ora lly gra nted it b ut did not sign an order. The sitting judge subsequen tly conduc ted a hearing and signed an order
gr anting the motion to vacate. DL appealed, raising six issues. The first issue alleges
that the tria l court lacked p lenary jurisdictio n to grant the amended motion to vacate.
Because we sustain this fi rst issue, which is dispositive of the a ppeal, we nee d not address the remaining issues. We will vacate the trial court ’ s order granting the
amended motion to vac ate and d ismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I. Standard of Review
We review a trial court ’ s sub ject

- matter jurisdiction de novo. Tex. Dep ’ t of Parks & Wildlife v. M iranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) ; Kelsall v. Haisten , 564 S.W.3d 157, 1 62 (Tex . App.

— Ho uston [1 st Dist. ] 2018 , no pet. )

.3 II. Background and Analysis When a foreign judgment is filed p ursuant to t he UEFJA , the judgment is
domesticated and acts as both the plaintiff ’ s p etition and the final judgment. Jahan Tigh v. De Lage Landen F in

. Ser v

s. , 545 S.W.3d 714, 718 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth 2018, no pet.) ; Moncrief v. Harvey  ̧805 S.W.2d 20, 22 (T ex. App.

— Dal las 1991, no writ)

. A
motion challe nging the validity of the foreign judgment acts as a motion for new trial
and must be filed within t hirty days of the en try of j udgmen t while the trial court still maintains plenary power. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(b); Wolf v. Andreas , 276 S.W.3d 23, 26 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2008, pet. withdr awn). A trial court’s plenary power expires after thirty days from the date judgment i s signed if no acti on is taken that would extend the plenary jurisdiction period. T ex . R. C iv . P. 329 b(f) ; Bahr v. Kohr , 928 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio, writ denied)

. A fter the trial court ’ s plenary power has
exp ired, a ny action taken on a dome sticated foreign ju dgment is a nullity

. Bahr , 928 S.W.2d at 100 (citing Walnut Equip. Leasing Co. v. W u , 9 2 0 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. 1996))

. I f t he trial court lac ked jurisdiction to vacate a domesticated foreign judgment
because it a cted afte r its plenary p o wer expi red , the p roper remedy on appeal is to set
asid e the void action by the trial court and dismi ss t h e appeal. Id. In this case, DL ’ s dom estication of the Pennsylvani a judgment on October 20,
2021 , served as i ts petiti on and final judg ment. See Jahan Tigh , 545 S.W.3d a t 718

. The
trial court ’ s plenary jurisdi ction e xpire d on November 19, 2021 , since no mo t ions
were filed that would have extended its plenary power
. T ex . R. C iv . P. 329b(f); Bahr ,4 928 S.W.2d at 100. There fore, barring some other legal imped iment , Ap pellees ’ motion to vacate filed on February 23, 2022 , and the ensuing order granting the
moti on were nullit ies

. App ellants contend that DL did n ot file a n authenticated “ foreign judgment , ”

so no final Texas judgment was created

. S ee Tex. Civ. Pra c. & Rem. Code Ann

. § 35. 003(a). Without a final Texas judgment in p lace , the timetables and deadlines
ap p l icable to post

- judgment proceedings , including motion s for new trial, are no t triggered

. Appellees cit e Love v. Moreland , 280 S.W.3d 334, 33 7 (Tex. A pp.

— Amarillo 2008, no pet.) , and Wolfram v. Wolfram , 165 S.W.3d 75 5 , 759 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2005, no p et.) , in support o f this argument. In Love , the plaintiff filed a “ transcript or description ” of a Colo rado judgment , which she sought to hav e domesti cated in
Texas. 28 0 S.W.3d at 336. It was uncontroverted that neit h er the Colorado judgment

n o r an authen t icated copy was ever filed. Id. Because no authenticated foreign judgment was filed, no fina l Texa s judgment arose , and the deadlines for con testing

t he foreign judgmen t were not triggered

. Id. at 337

– 38.
In Wol f

ram , the p laintiff sought to d omesticate a California judg ment
. 165
S.W. 3d at 757 , 759

. She filed an authenticated copy of the judgment in probate co urt
in Bexa r County agains t the jud gment debtor ’ s “ estate
. ” Id

. at 759. The court of
appe als held that the post

- judgment deadlines to co ntest the do m e stication of the
Califo rnia judgment did not start to run with the filing of the foreign judgment5 because an “ estate ” is not a legal e ntity , so there was no final judgm ent to trigger the deadlines for challenging the foreign judgment

. Id. at 759

– 60.
W e d o not find these case s analogous to the present case. When reviewing a
T exas trial court ’ s ruling regarding the enforcement of a forei g n judgme nt, we determine the for ei gn judgment ’ s validity under the laws of the state that rendered it

. Mindis Metals, Inc

. v. Oilfie l d Motor & Control, Inc. , 132 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied.) (op. on reh ’ g) ; see also I nt ’ l Arm ament Corp. v.
Stocker & L ancaster LLP , 565 S.W. 3d 823, 830 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2018, no pet.)

. Texas courts pre s ume a foreign judgment is valid absent clear and convincing evidence that the judgme nt is invalid under the laws of that s t ate. Int ’ l
Armament Corp. , 56 5 S.W .3d at 830 ; Mindi s , 132 S.W.3d at 483

. In this case, DL fil ed an Affidavit of Filing F o reign Judg m ent . Attached to it were the following:

• a cer tification by the p rothonotar y (court clerk) of the Court of Common Pleas fo r Chester County certif ying that th e record was a copy o f the full, entire , and whole record of the underlying Pen nsylvani a case ;

• an attestation of the pres ident judge of the Fift eenth Judicial District of the Commonw ealth of Pennsylvania , Hon. John Hall, that the prothonotary ’ s certificat ion was in due form an d by the proper officer ;

• an attestation by the prothon otary that Judge Hall “ was at the time the same bears date, and now is President Judge of the Fifteenth Ju dicial District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania, composed of the Coun ty of Chester, duly co mmissioned and qualified, and that fu ll faith and confidence shou l d be given to all her official acts and attestations ” ;6 • a document that states THIS JUDGMENT CERTIFIED IN FAVOR OF DE LAGE LANDEN FI N ANCIAL S ERVICES, INC. AND AGAINST M D H OILFIELD SERV ICES LLC & MICHAEL HILBURN
IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,921.60
CERTIFIE D FROM THE R ECORD /s/ Margaret [last name illegible] Deputy Protho n otary August 1 3 , 2021 ;

• a C ase S ummary R eport , “ Certified From Th e Record ” by the same Dep uty Proth onotary , which appears to be a chronological listing of events in the case, in cluding e n tries o n J uly 8, 2021 , reflecting that a default judgment in the amount of $78,921.60 was granted with interest at 24% from 07/ 0 1 /2021 , with th e judg ment being indexed on 07/09/2021 ;

• a “ Pra e cip e to Enter Default Judgment ” issued by DL ’ s counsel on July 1 , 2021 , with attachments reflecting issu ance and service of citat ion and a Notice of Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment dated J u ne 9, 2 021, and served on Appellees ; and

• a notice to Appellees from the Pennsyl vania court tha t a Praecipe to Enter Default Jud g ment , a Notice under Pennsylvania Rule 236 , and other related documents had been filed and could be viewed on the court ’ s efiling site

. Ap pellees argue tha t t hese docu ments bear no resembla nc e to what we would consider a judgment to l ook like in T exas. W h ile tha t may be tru e, we cannot require
other states ’ judgments to conform to Texas ’ s norms. We must determine w hether
the “ judgme nt ” of th e other state conforms to the requ i rements for a final judgment
fro m the issuing state.7 Althou gh we might cobble to g ether a des cription of the distinctly different procedures that the Commonwe alth of Pennsyl van ia has developed , the court of
appea ls i n Ten nessee did this quite succinc tly in Wolf Org

. , Inc. v. TNG Contractors,
LLC , a case involving Tennes see ’ s version o f the UEFJA and a Pennsy lvania default judgment, A brief explanation of Penn sylvania civil procedure is necessary here. One unique as pec t to civil procedure in Pennsylvan ia is the rol e of the prothonotary. The office of prothonotary is “a cr eation of Penns y l vania law or statewide procedure.” Edward C. Sweeney, Essential Practice R

ules and Concepts in Offices of the Prothonotary

- Part I, 75 PA. B. ASS ’ N Q. 104, 105 (2004). E ach county ha s a prothonotary who functions as the clerk of the court o f common pleas. S ee 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2731 (West, Westlaw through 2019 Re gular Sess. Act 9); Brown v. Levy , 73 A.3d 514, 519 (Pa. 201 3). The prothonotary ’ s role is min isterial, not judicial. Gotwalt v. Dellinger , 577 A.2d 623, 625 (Pa. Su per. Ct. 1990). T he prothonotary ’ s authority to act is derived from Pennsylvania ’ s statutes and procedural rules. Id. ; see 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. St at. Ann. § 2737 (West, Westlaw throug h 2019 Regula r Sess. Act 9) (prescribing the powers and duties of the o ffice of the pr o t honotary). Default judgments in Pennsylvania are entered by the prothonot ary without judicial participation upon praecipe of a part y. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 237.1(a)(2), 10 37(b). After receipt of the necessary documentation, the prothonotary w ill review the c o urt record to see if it supports entry of a default judgment. See id. 23 7.1, 1037(b); Gotwalt , 577 A.2d at 625; Bank One D el. N.A. v. Mitchell , 70 Pa. D. & C.4th 353, 3 65

- 66 (Ct. Co m. Pl. 2005), aff ’ d sub nom. Bank One v. Mitchell , 897 A.2 d 512 (Pa. Supe r . Ct. 2006). Entry of a default judgment by the prothonotary “precludes t he opponent from challenging his or her liability. ” Mother ’ s R est. Inc. v. Krystkiewicz , 861 A.2 d 327, 335 (P a. Super. Ct. 2004). If the amount of the plaintiff ’ s lega l damages can b e calculated from the verified complaint, the prothonotary will also
as sess damages. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1037(b)(1) (directing th e prothon ota ry to assess damages if the amount “is a sum ce rtain or which can be made certain by computation”). But t he prothonotary i s not authorized to order equitable relief. See id. 1037(d). So if th e8 amount of damages is uncertain or the complaint req uests equ ita ble relief, “the trial court has t he independen t obligation to fashion the appropriate relief at a future date.” Mother ’ s Rest. Inc. , 861 A.2d at 335; see Pa. R. Civ. P. 1037(b)(1), (d).
No. M2018

- 00073

- COA

- R3

- CV , 2019 WL 2883813 , at *1

– 2 ( Tenn. Ct. Ap p
. July 3,
2019 ) (emphasis added) (footnote s omitted ) , perm. app. denied (Oct. 11, 2019)

. We have previously held that
A p a rty seeking to e n force a foreign judgment under the UEFJA ha s the initial burden to present a prima facie case by fili ng a judgment that app ears on i ts face to be a f inal, valid, and subsisting judgment. Mindis Metals

. . . , 132 S.W.3d [at] 484

. . . . F i ling the foreign judgment “instantly creates an enforceable Texas judgment.” Jahan Tigh

. . . , 545 S.W.3d [at] 720

– 21

. . . ; see T ex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 35.00 3(c). The judgment debtor may challenge enforceability of the judgment by filing a p o stjudgment motio n . See, e.g. , Moncrief

. . . , 805 S.W.2d [at] 23

. . . . If the foreign judgment is valid on its face, the judgment debtor has t he b urden to prove by clear and convincing evidence one of five reasons why the foreign judgment should not be given full faith and credit. Mindis Metals , 132 S.W.3d at 484
. Lavin v. Kan

. Dep ’ t of Revenue , No. 02

- 19

- 00362

- C V , 2020 WL 3 865270 , at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 9, 2020 , no pet .) (mem. op) (emphas is added)

. Given the Pennsylvania law that governs t h e issuance of def a ult judgments , w e hold that the documents attached to DL ’ s Affidavit of Filing of Foreign Judgment appeared to be a final, val id, an d subsisting defa ult judgment such that DL met its initial burden to present a prima facie case. The bur d e n then shifted to Appellees to
prove , within the time provided by law, by clear and convincing evidence why the Pennsylvania judgment should not be gi ven full faith an d credit. Having failed to do9 this in a timely fashion, the trial court was without ple n a ry jurisdiction t o grant the
amended motion to vacate. We sustain DL ’ s first issue and or der that the trial court ’ s order gra nting th e amende d motion to vacate is s et as ide and this appe al is dismissed
for want of jurisd iction.
III. Conclusion Having susta in e d DL ’ s first issue, we vacate the t rial court ’ s order granting the
amended motion to vacate and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisd iction.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wa llach Justice
De l ivered: March 30, 2023