i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00436- CV IN RE J onathan

ZA VALA Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 31, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS CONDI TI ONAL L Y GRANTED On J une 8, 2010, re lator Jonathan Z avala filed a pe tition for writ of mandamus, see king to compel the trial court to vaca te i t s J an u ar y 2 1 , 2010 order g ranting a new trial. We conditionally g rant manda

mus relief. BACK GR OUND The underly ing suit is a div o rce proce eding , including a suit aff ecting the pare nt-child rela tionship, betwee n rela tor J onathan Z avala and rea l party in interest Natalie Z avala
. On April 3, 2009, J onatha n filed an Orig inal Petition for Divorce , and on September 25, 2009 the trial court

1 ... T h i s p r o c e e d i n g a r i s e s o u t o f C a u s e N o . 2 0 0 9

- C I
- 0 5 6 3 8 , I n t h e M a t t e r o

f t h e M a r r i a g e o

f J o n a t h a n Z a v a l a a n d N a t a l i e Z a v a l a , i n t h e 7 3 r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B e x a r C o u n t y , T e x a s , t h e H o n o r a b l e R e n é e F
. M c E l h a n e y p r e s i d i n g . H o w e v e r , t h e o r d e r c o m p l a i n e d o f w a s s i g n e d b y t h e H o n o r a b l e A n t o n i a A r t e a g a , p r e s i d i n g j u d g e o f t h e 5 7 t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B e x a r C o u n t y , T e x a s .0 4

- 1 0

- 0 0 4 3 6

- C V

enter ed a post-answe r defa ult judgme nt ag ainst Natalie. On October 20, 2009, Natalie filed a motion for new trial, which was o ra l l y grante d by J udg e Antonia Artea g a at a hear ing on Dec ember 22, 2009. Howeve r, J udg e Artea g a did not sign the order g ranting the motion for new trial until J anuar y 21, 2010. Relator contends the trial court’s order g ranting the motion for new trial is void beca use the trial cour

t lacked jur isdiction. ANALYSIS Gene rally , mandamus will issue only to corr ect a clea r abuse o f d i s cr eti on for which the rela tor has no adequa

te reme dy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig
. proce eding ); W alker v. Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig
. proce eding ). When an order g ranting a new trial is void beca use it was g rante d afte r the trial court’s plenar y power
ex p i re d , m andamus relief is available beca use there is no adequate reme dy by appea l. In r e Dickason , 987 S.W .2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998). There fore , mandamus relief is available to revie w the order g ranting a new

trial that J onathan c ontends is void. A timely filed motion for new trial is overr uled by opera tion of law if the trial court does not sign a written orde r within seventy -five day s after the date the judgme nt is signed. T E X . R. C I V . P. 329b(c)
. Howeve r, the trial court has plenar y power to g rant a new trial or to vacate, modify , corr ect,
or ref orm the judgme nt for thirty day s afte r the motion for new trial is overr uled, either by a written and si g ned order or by opera tion of l aw, whic hever occur s first. T E X . R. C I V . P. 329b(e) . “A tria l judge ’s oral pronounce ment g ranting a motion for new trial or motion to modify , ref orm, or corr ect
a judgme nt and a docket entry indicating that such motion was g rante d cannot substitut e for a written order require d by Rule 329b.” Faulkner v. Culver , 851 S.W .2d 187, 188 (Tex. 1993); see also In re Lovito-Nelson , 278 S.W .3d 773, 775 (Tex. 2009).

- 2

-0 4

- 1 0

- 0 0 4 3 6

- C V

Her e, since no written order was signe d by the trial court within seventy -five day s of the judgme nt, the motion for new trial was overruled by opera tion of l aw on Dec ember 9, 2009. See T E X . R. C I V . P. 329b(c)
. The trial court’s Dec ember 22, 2009 oral pronoun ce m en t g ranting the motion for new trial that had alre ady been overr uled by opera

tion of law was made within the trial court’s ple nary

power . See T E X . R. C I V . P. 329b(e)
. Howeve r, beca use the trial court did not sig n the order u n t i l J an u ar y 21, 2010, which was one hundred and eig hteen day s from the date of the judgme nt, it was outside the trial court’s plenar y power . There fore , the trial court lacke d jurisdiction when it sig ned the or der g ranting the motion for new tr ial and the or der is void. I n respons e t o the petition for writ of mandamus, Natalie first asser ts the Final Dec ree of Divorce is inter locutory and not f inal beca use it f ailed to dispose of all of the claims and parties to the s uit. See Kiefer v. T

ouris , 197 S.W .3d 300, 300 (Tex. 20 0 6 ); L eh ma n n v. Har-Con Corp ., 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). As a result, Natalie contends that beca use the divorce decr ee was not final, the trial court reta ined plenar y power to g rant the new trial on J anuar y 21, 2010. We disag ree . Natalie contends t h e d ec ree is interlocutory beca use it does not dispose of the issue of custody beca use it provides that both J onathan and Natalie have the exclusive rig ht to desig nate the primary residenc e of the child without reg ard to g eog raphic location. Howeve r, the rema inder of the divorce decr ee clea

rly specifie s the terms of possession. There fore , we conclude Natalie has not established the orde r is interlocutory

beca use it failed to dispose of a ll pending pa rties and c laims. Fur thermore , Natalie responds that the petition should be denied beca use the trial court did not have jurisdiction over any issues aff ecting the custody of the minor child N.Z
. beca use Ohio had continuing jurisdicti o n over N.Z
. Whil e we acknow ledg e Natalie’ s arg ument that Ohio had

- 3

-0 4

- 1 0

- 0 0 4 3 6

- C V

continuing jurisdiction, the issue has not been proper ly prese nted to this court. See Geary v. Peav y , 878 S.W .2d 602, 603-05 (Te x . 1994). CONCLUSION We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in g ranting the motion for new trial beca use the order was signe d afte r the trial court lost plenar y power . Acc ording ly , we conditionally g rant the writ of mandamus. The trial court is order ed to va cate its January 21, 2010 order g ranting the new trial. The wr it will i ssue only if the trial cour

t fails to comply

within fourteen da

y s.

PER C URI AM

- 4

-