Court Opinion

ID: 9634577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:17:26.29997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:05.998883
License: Public Domain

Justice ENOCH,
joined by Justice OWEN, concurring.
I agree with Justice Hecht’s conclusions except to the extent he would permit a postjudgment motion that requests relief that could be included in the judgment to extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction and the time for perfecting an appeal. The time-focus of Rule 329b1 is predicated *323on a motion assailing the judgment. Consequently, the postjudgment motion must target the judgment in order to extend the court’s plenary jurisdiction under Rule 329b.
Rule 329b(g) refers to a “motion to modify, correct, or reform a judgment.”2 At a minimum, the motion must alert the court to the fact that the movant wants the judgment changed — whether because of the nature of the relief requested or by an explicit request that the judgment be changed. A request for relief that could, but need not, be included in a final judgment is not sufficient.
In any event, I agree with Justice Hecht that a timely-filed postjudgment motion that seeks a change in an existing judgment, whether or not the change sought is material or substantial, qualifies as a Rule 329b(g) motion to modify. Because the Court holds that the change must be substantial, I .can only concur in the judgment.

. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 329b(g).

. Id.