Court Opinion

ID: 2841742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-03 01:06:13.050897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:08.271091
License: Public Domain

<HTML> 

<HEAD> 

<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect"> 

<TITLE></TITLE> 

</HEAD> 

<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>Issued on February 28, 2008</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><IMG SRC="080013f1\080013f1.gif" WIDTH="114" HEIGHT="112"></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 13pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 13pt"><STRONG>In The</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 18pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT" STYLE="font-size: 18pt"><STRONG>Court of Appeals</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT" STYLE="font-size: 18pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 13pt"><STRONG>For The</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 13pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT" STYLE="font-size: 18pt"><STRONG>First District of Texas</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT" STYLE="font-size: 18pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><center><img src="080013f1\080013f11.gif" width="99" height="7"></center></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>__________</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT" STYLE="font-size: 18pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>NO. 01-08-00013-CV</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>__________</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><center><img src="080013f1\080013f12.gif" width="99" height="7"></center></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>IN RE SHORELINE PARTNERS, LLC, PRENTIS B. TOMLINSON, JR., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND THOMAS E. HARDISTY, INDIVIDUALLY, 

Relators</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><IMG SRC="080013f1\080013f13.gif" WIDTH="6" HEIGHT="6"><HR SIZE="5"> 

</P> 

 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><IMG SRC="080013f1\.gif" WIDTH="6" HEIGHT="6"><HR SIZE="5"> 

</P> 

 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>MEMORANDUM OPINION</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt">         By petition for writ of mandamus, relators, Shoreline Partners, L.L.C., Prentis 

B. Tomlinson, Jr., and Thomas E. Hardisty (collectively, "Shoreline") challenge the 

trial court's February 27, 2006 orders reinstating the suit of real party in interest 

Petrogulf Corporation ("Petrogulf") and granting default judgment to Petrogulf.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><A HREF="#N_1_"><SUP> (1)</SUP></A></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">  </SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG>Background</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">	In 2004, Petrogulf sued Shoreline for repayment of monies owed for the 

exploration and development of oil and gas prospects.  On August 26, 2005, the trial 

court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. On September 9, 2005, Petrogulf 

filed a motion to reinstate and for default judgment.  Several months later, on 

February 27, 2006, the trial court signed the order to reinstate and for default 

judgment.  Shoreline requests a writ of mandamus to require the trial court to vacate 

its orders reinstating Petrogulf's case and granting default judgment because the 

court's plenary power had expired when the trial court signed the order granting the 

reinstatement.  In a letter filed with this court, Petrogulf states that it does not oppose 

the petition for writ of mandamus and accordingly declines to file a response.          </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG>Standard of Review</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">	Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when (1) a trial court 

clearly abuses its discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy by appeal.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 148 S.W.3d 124, 13536 (Tex. 2004); </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>In re Supportkids, 

Inc.</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 124 S.W.3d 804, 807 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding).  

A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and 

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Walker v. Packer</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 

827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).  With respect to a trial court's determination of 

legal principles, "a trial court has no 'discretion' in determining what the law is or 

applying the law to facts."  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>In re Prudential</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 148 S.W.3d at 135 (quoting </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Walker</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 827 

S.W.2d at 840).  Thus, a trial court's failure to analyze or apply the law correctly will 

constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in a reversal by extraordinary writ.  

</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Walker</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 827 S.W.2d at 840.  Mandamus will issue when a trial court erroneously 

reinstates a case after the expiration of the court's plenary jurisdiction.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Estate of 

Howley v. Haberman</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 878 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. 1994).    </SPAN></P> 

 

<P ALIGN="CENTER"><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG>Discussion</STRONG></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG>	</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">The date a trial court signs an order on dismissal for want of prosecution 

determines the beginning of the period for the court's plenary power to decide a 

motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Tex. R. Civ. P. 

</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">306(a)(1).  A trial court has plenary power to reinstate a case within 30 days after the 

order of dismissal is signed. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Neese v. Wray</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">,</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"> 893 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tex.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"> 

App.--</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ)</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">.  A motion to reinstate extends the trial 

court's plenary power until 30 days after such timely filed motions are overruled, 

either by a written, signed order or by operation of law.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Tex. R. Civ. P. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">165a(3); 

</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>South Main Bank v. Wittig</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, 909 S.W.2d 243, 244 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 

1995, orig. proceeding).  If a motion to reinstate is not decided by signed written 

order within 75 days after the judgment is signed, the motion will be deemed 

overruled by operation of law.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Tex. R. Civ. P. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">165a(3).  An order of <A NAME="SR_59_926"></A><A NAME="SearchTerm"></A>reinstatement 

<A NAME="SR_59_927"></A>must be in writing and signed during the trial court's <A NAME="SR_59_937"></A>plenary power and jurisdiction. 

</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><EM>Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Ctr., Inc. v. Zardenetta,</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"> 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 

1989). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"> 	The trial court dismissed the instant case for want of prosecution on August 26, 

2005.  The 75-day period for the court to grant the motion to reinstate by signed order 

expired November 9, 2005.  Accordingly, Petrogulf's motion to reinstate was 

overruled by operation of law on November 9.  The court's plenary power extended 

for an additional 30 days, until December 9, 2005.  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Tex. R. Civ. P. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">165a(3).  

However, the district court did not sign the order granting the motion to reinstate until 

February 27, 2006, 185 days after signing the order to dismiss for want of 

prosecution.  Because the trial court's jurisdiction terminated on December 9, 2005, 

the orders it signed reinstating the case and granting default judgment on February 

27, 2006, are void.    </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"><STRONG>Conclusion</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">	We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by reinstating the case and 

granting default judgment after termination of its plenary jurisdiction.  We 

conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and order the trial court to vacate its 

February 27, 2006 "Order on Motion to Reinstate for Default Judgment" and 

February 27, 2006 Order for "Default Judgment."  We are confident that the trial 

court will promptly comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.           </SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">							Evelyn V. Keyes, </SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">							Justice</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 10pt">Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Alcala.               </SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><A NAME="N_1_">1. </A></SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><SUP>1</SUP>	The underlying suit is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><EM>Petrogulf Corporation v. Shoreline Partners, L.L.C. Prentice B. 

Tomlinson, Jr., Individually, and Thomas E. Hardisty, Individually</EM></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Times New Roman" STYLE="font-size: 14pt"></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt">, cause no. 2004-73726 in the 

165th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. Elizabeth Ray presiding.   

</BODY> 

</HTML>