The Rules Gove rning Admission to t he B ar of Texas are promulg ate d b y t h e Te x as 1 Supreme Court as a

uthorized by

statute. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 82.022 (West 2005). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 342 -CV

Te xa s Bo ar d of La w Exa m ine r s , A ppe lla nt

v. Donald L ittle , Appellee

FROM COUN TY C OURT A T LA W N O. 1 OF TR AV IS C OUNT Y, NO. C-1- CV-09 -00 2709 , HO NORAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
After the Texas Boa

rd of La w Examiners (“TB L E”) f ound pro se a

ppellee Donald L ittle unfit to practice la w in Texas, L ittle appeale d TBL E’s dec ision to C ounty Court No . 1 of Tr a vis County . Be c a

us e on ly Tr a vis County dis tr ic t cou rt s hav e jur isd ic tio n o ve r a pp e a ls from TB L E dec isions, see Rules G overning Admission to the Ba r of Texas, Rule XV(k)( 1) (2009) , 1 the c ounty

c ourt dis mis se d th e c a se fo r w ant o f j ur isd ic tio n, bu t a lso or de re d the c a se tr ans fe rr e d to the Travis County

district clerk for filing in a Travis County district c ourt. TB L E appe als from the county court’s order, arg uing that beca use t he county court did not have subjec t matter jurisdiction over the case , it did not have the authority to transfe r the c ase to district cour t. We vacate the portion of the trial c ourt’s orde r transf err ing the case and dismiss for want of jur isdiction.The panel’s decision was based on L ittle’s issues with the I nterna l Revenue Ser vice a nd 2 his failure to suff

iciently disclose that information to TB L E.

2 BACK GR OUND Do na ld L itt le , an a tto rn e y lic e ns e d in Ut ah a nd L ou isi ana , a

pp lie d f or a dmi ssi on

to the State B ar o f T e xas. On De c e mbe r 5 , 2 00 8, a

thr e e -m e mbe r p ane l of

TB L E h eld a hear in g to consider w hether

L i t t l e p ossessed the g ood moral cha rac ter re quired for

admission to the practice of law in Te x as. The pa

nel found that L ittle lacked the r equi s i t e m o ra l char acte r for admission, sug g ested curative measures, and mandated that L ittle could not petition for re deter mination before Dec ember

5, 2010. 2 Li t t l e s o u g h tt o a

p p e a l T B LE ’ s r

u l i n g . U n d e r

t h e r u l e s g o v e r

n i n g r e v i e w o f

T B LE d e c i s i o n s , t h e “ a f

f e c t e d A p p l i c an t o r D e c l ar an t s h a l l i n s t i tu t e , i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt s o f T r a v i s C o u n t y, Texas proce eding s for re view of suc h decision within s i x t y (6 0 ) d ay s after the date the written de c isi on is m a ile d to the Ap pli c ant. ” Rul e s G ov e rn ingAd mis sio n t o the B ar o f T e xas, Rule XV(k) (1). Within the allotted 60 day s, L ittle prepar ed a no t i ce of administrative appe al of T B LE ’ s d e c i s i o n t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a ti tw a s t o b e f

i l e d “ IN T H E D IS T R IC T C O U R T O F T RA V IS COUNTY, TEX AS.” Howe ver, L i t t le went to the wr ong cler k’s offic e to file the notice and mistakenly file d

it w it h th e c le r k o f th e c o u n ty

c o u rt o f T r a v is Co u n ty
. A c c o r d in g to L ittl e ’s statements during the hea ring befor e the trial court, he observe d the county court c lerk scr atch out the wo rd “ DI STR I CT” on

his no tic e and

wr ite in “ CO UN TY .” L itt le did no thi nga t th a t ti me to

r e m e dy th e s i tu a t i o n . T h e m a t t e r w a s s u b s e qu e n t l y f

i l e d i nC o u n t y C o u rtN o . 1 o f T r a v i s C o u n t y.3 TBL E filed a ple a to the jurisdiction. At the hear ing on the plea to the jurisdiction, L ittle stipulated that the trial court, being a county court, did not have jurisdiction over the matter. L itt le argue d, ho we ve r, that th e tr ia l court sh ou ld tr ans fe r the c a se to a T ra vis County

dis tr ic t c ourt
. Th e tr ia l c ourt

g ra nte d T B L E’ s p le a

to t he jur isd ic tio n, or de re d th e c a se dis mis se d, and a dd iti on a lly

or de re d th a t “ the c a

us e is tra ns fe rr e d to the Tr a vis Cou nty Di str ic t Cle rk

fo r f ili ngin a Tr a vis County District Court.” TB L E then fil ed thi s interlocutory appea l from the trial court’s order, arg uing that the trial cour

t did not have the author ity to transfe r a c ase ove r which it di d not have subjec t matter jurisdiction.

DI SCU SSIO N J ur isd ic tio n o f th e Ap pe lla te Cou rt We beg in with the jurisdiction of t his court to hear TBL E’s interlocutor

y appea l, an issue raised in L ittle’s response brief. The civil prac tice and reme dies code indicates t hat a pe rson may appea l from an interl o cu t o ry o rder of a c ounty

court that “ g rants or de nies a plea to the jurisdiction by

a g overnme ntal unit as that term is defined in Sec tion 1 0 1

. 0 0 1

. ” T ex. C iv. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (8) (West 2008). I n this case, the tr ial court’s or der c lear ly rules on

a ple a to the jur isd ic tio n by TB L E. F ur the r, TB L E qu a lif

ie s a s a “ g ov e rnme nta l un it” un de r t he c ivi l prac t ice a

nd reme dies code

. Id. § 101.001(3)( a) ( West 2005) (including in the definition of “g overnme ntal unit” “all of the sever al ag encie s of g overnme nt th at co l l ectively constitute the go v ernme nt of this state, including . . . a ll departments, bure aus, boards , c o m m i s s i o n s , o ff ic e s, ag encie s, councils, and c ourts”) ( emphasis adde d). Ac cording ly , under the plain lang uag e of the statut e , w e have jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r t he a pp e a l.Li t t l e a l s o ar g u e s t h a tt h i s C o u rtl a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o nt o h e ar T B LE ’ s a

p p e a l b e c a

u s e T B LE 3 was the “ winner” with reg ard to its plea to the jurisdiction. H o wever, the fa ct that the trial c ourt e xer c ise d ju

ri sd ic tio n w he n it

trans fe rr e d th e c a se ind ic a te s th a t T B L E d id n ot e nti re ly pr e va il, despite the languag e in the orde r g ranting TBL E’s plea to the jurisdiction. 4 L ittle, however , argues that our jurisdiction doe s not ext end to the portion of the tr ial court’s or der tra

nsfer ring the ca se to district co u rt . As a g ener al matter, a trial court’ s “dec ision reg ardingtransfer o f v en u e . . . is not subject to interlocutory appea l.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Barner , 9 64 S.W. 2d 29 9, 30 1 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 19 98 , n o p e t.) ; see also Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. § 15.064(a) (West 2008). Howeve r, an interloc utory appea l may

be take n on a transfe r orde r t hat consti tutes an “impli cit reje ction” of a g overnme ntal unit’s plea to the jurisdiction. See Thomas v . Long , 207 S.W .3d 334, 340 (Tex. 2006) (holding that trial court’s ruling s on issues

over w hich it does not have subjec t matter jurisdiction “con s t i t u t e an implicit reje ction of . . . jurisdictional challeng es” and may there fore be subjec t to interlocutory appea l); cf. Surgitek v. Abe l , 997 S.W .2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (holding t hat order t ransf err ing venue was subject to interlocutory appea l when “pr edicated on [the court’s] decision about the propr iety of the plain t i ffs’ joinder ,” wher e joinder w as issue on which inter locutory appea l could be take n). In light of our conclusion below that the tria l court lacke d jurisdiction to transfe r the case , we c onstrue the tria l court’s orde r g ranting transfe r as a

n “i mplicit rejection” of

TBL E’s plea

to the jurisdiction. Consequently , the 3

or de r i s o ne we may

re vie w o n a

n in te rl oc uto ry

ba sis

. J ur isd ic tio n o f th e Tria l Co ur t We t ur n to the iss ue of

wh e the r t he tr ia l cou

rt ha d ju ri sd ic tio n to tr ans fe r t

he c a se to the district court. Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a cour t to decide a

case ;Transf er from a court lacking in jurisdiction may be author ized by

statute. For

example, 4 the code of cr iminal proce d u re “c o nfer s authority on a cour t otherwise lac king jur isdiction over a cause of action to tr ansfe r an indictment to a court of appropr iate jurisdiction.” Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 63 2 S.W.2 d 783 , 786 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14thDi st. ] 198 2, no pe t.) ; see also Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. a

rt. 21.26 (West 2009). Fur ther, Te x as ca selaw a lso recog nizes some ex ceptions to the g ener al rule pr ohibiting trans fe r from a court lac king subje ct matter jurisdiction. See, e .g. , Texas E mployers’

Ass’n v. Cashion , 1 3 0 S. W. 2 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 3 ( T e x. Ci v . A p p . — D a ll a s 1 9 3 9 , w r it r e f ’ d) (noting that b i l l o f re v i ew filed in wrongdistrict court bec ause of mistake by

cler k could be t ra n s fe rr ed to di strict court with jurisdiction). Howe ver, no statutory or common law e x ception applies to this case. 5 it is never pre sumed an d ca n n ot be waive d. Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex as Air Contr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 443-44 (Tex. 1993)

. Reg arding the power s of a court lacking jurisdiction, the trial

c ourt sa id i t be st: “ I t is a xiomatic tha t a jud g e wi tho ut jur isd ic tio n ca n only take on e a c tio n in

a c a se
an d that is to sign a dismissal.” I n other wor ds, “[n] o jurisdiction means exactly that.” P a rker v. Cumming , 216 S.W .3d 905, 911 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. denied) (explaining that c ourt wi t h o u tj u ri s d i ct i o n“h adn o au t h o ri t y t o d o an y t h i n g”)

. C o n s eq u en t l y , l ac k o f j u ri s d i ct i o nb ri n gs with it the concomitant lack of authority to transfe r the c ase to a

court with jurisdiction, unless the transfe r is othe rwise a

uthorized. Se e Qw est M ic ro wav e, I

nc . v . B e da rd , 756 S.W .2d 426, 438-39 4 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 1 98 8, no wr it) (e xpla ini ng that, wh ile c a se s ma y be tr ans fe rr e d b e tw e e n c ourt s of conc urre nt jurisdiction, court that has “no jurisdiction [] whatsoeve r” cannot t ransf er case to c ourt with jurisdiction).

I n this case, the pa

rties stipulated that the trial cour t did not have jurisdiction to hear the c a se un de r t

he Rul e s G ov e rn ing Ad

mis sio n to the B a

r o f T e xas. Ac c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt did

no t ha ve the su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n to “ do anyth in g” w iththe c a se , in c lud ingtr ans fe r i t. See id. a t 43 8. L itt le do e s n ot c ite , n or have we fou nd, a

ny statut e s o r c a se s a

uth or izin g a

c ountyEv e n if the tr ans fe r o rd e r w e re to rem ain in pla c e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt re c e ivi ngthe c a se 5 would have no a

uthority to hear it. A district court “ha s no authority to hear claims that wer e orig inally pleade d befor e a [] court lacking in subject-matter jurisdiction,” even if

the district court could hear t he claims if they wer e properly pleade d de novo. Se e Qw est M ic ro wav e, I

nc . v . B e da rd , 756 S.W .2d 426, 438-39 (Te x . App.—Dallas 1988, no w rit). I n attempting to pr eser

ve the tra n s fe r order and a llow the district court to hea r the c ase, 6 L ittle arg ues that the rules of proce dure should be a pplied “libera lly

to rea ch the mer its of the appea l wh en ev er p o s s i b l e, ” c i t i n g W arwick Towers Council v. Park W arwick, L.P. , 244 S.W .3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008). As pointed out by TBL E, W

ar wic k T owe rs an d

i t s p ro gen y

(i n cl u d i n g In re Sm ith , 270 S.W .3d 783 (Tex. A

pp.—Waco 2008, no pet.), a case cited by L ittle in an ear lier filing ) involve proce dural de fec ts affe cting case s that had bee n filed in t he c orre c t c ou rt . See id. (involving a ppeal filed in proper

court whe re a

ppellant “failed t o name its elf as the appellant in its notice of a ppeal” ). F ur the r, the se c a se s invo lve int e rp re ta tio n of the ru le s of ap pe llate pr oc e dure , whi c h ap ply on ly to a p p e a ls f il e d in “ a p p e ll a te c o u rts , ” n o t d is tr ic t o r c o u n ty courts. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 1. 1 ( “ Th e se ru le s g ov e rn

pr oc e dure in a

pp e llate c ourt s . . . .” ), 3. 1( b) (d e fi nin g “ a pp e llate c ourt ” a s “ the c ourt s of appeals, t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls, and the Supreme Court” ). Ac cording ly , these c ases do no t be ar d ir e c tly

on the re so lut ion

of L itt le ’s a pp e a l. L i t t l e arg ues that eve n if the trial cour t’s transfe r orde r ca

nnot stand, the ca se should be 7 rema nded with instruction s i n d i catingthat the 60-da y tolling provision of the c ivil practice and reme dies code applies to his case

. See T e x. Pr a c . & Re m. Co d e A n n. § 16.064 ( We s t 2 0 0 8 )

. We note, howeve r, that sec tion 16.064 applies to lim itations provision s , n o t to filing pre requisites imposed by

statute. Heart Hosp. IV, L.P. v . King , 116 S.W .3d 831, 836 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) (“B eca

use sec tion 16.064 is an ex ception to the g ener al limitations provisions, it does not a pply to pr ocee dings c reated by statutes, such as statutory revie ws of administrative de cisions.”); see also Castillo v. Al l i ed Ins. Co. , 537 S.W .2d 486, 487 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, 6 c ourt wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to tr ans fe r an a pp e a l su c h a s thi s to a

pr op e r d istri c t c ourt
. A c c o r d i n g l y, 5

we c onclude that the tr ial court’s or der transfe rring the case to district court is void due to want of jurisdiction. See id. (h old ingthat or de rs e xce e din g the sc op e of c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n a re no t me re ly 6 voidable but void).

CO NC LU SION

We vacate the portion of the tr ial court’s or der tra nsfer ring the case and dismi ss for want of jurisdiction. 7writ ref

’d n.r.e .) (holding that mandatory 20-day appea l per i o d of Worker’ s Compensation Boar d decision is not affe cted by 60-day tolling provisi on of section 16.064 beca use section 16.064 “does no t a ff e c t spe c ia l st a tut or

y pr oc e e din g s” ). We f

ur the r n ote that th is a

nd oth e r a rgume nts re la tin g to whether a district cour

t could rea ch the m er i t s o f the c ase at this j uncture are proper ly raised a nd de te rm ine d if

and wh e n th e a

pp e a l is fi le d in

the c or re c t c ourt
. 7 __________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Vac ated a nd Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 31, 2009