Court Opinion

ID: 9410432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 09:15:51.261015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.796317
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                           TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                   No. 10-23-00043-CV

WILLIAM D. HARDEN,
                                                           Appellant
v.

US BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN
TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
 CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-6,
                                       Appellee

                            From the 18th District Court
                               Johnson County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. DC-C202100359

                                         DISSENT

       I cannot imagine what the trial court could do to make it any clearer that the

proceeding is intended to be final, over, and done, than the “Final Order” signed in this

proceeding. It states in its entirety:
                                      FINAL ORDER

                 This matter was filed via an Original Petition for Bill of Review of
       the default Final Judgment entered in Cause Number C2012-00370 on June
       13, 2013.
                 The Court heard the Bill of Review, granted the Bill of Review, and
       vacated the Default Judgment in C2012-00370 in the Order titled “Order
       Granting Petition for Bill of Review.”
                 All relief requested in this matter has been granted, the November
       7, 2022 order resolved all claims properly presented to the Court, and the
       file should be closed.
                 This Final Order, as well as the November 7, 2022 Order Granting
       Petition for Bill of Review, shall be filed in Cause Number C2012-00370;
       which shall be reopened for any further proceedings.

       SO ORDERED,

       SIGNED on ____February 17, 2023___

                            ____________/S/________________

       I find no fault with the law presented in the Court’s opinion regarding the merits

of a bill of review, but that is not what determines our jurisdiction. It is not because the

trial court did not properly dispose of all the facets of a completed bill of review in this

proceeding that we do not have jurisdiction. Rather, it is because we have a final

judgment that is clearly intended by the trial court to dispose of all issues as to all parties

in this proceeding that we have jurisdiction. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191

(Tex. 2001). The trial court intends that nothing more happen in this proceeding, and the

Final Order makes that unmistakably clear. There will never be anything with more

finality in this proceeding than the “Final Order;” so it is now or never for the appeal of

this trial court proceeding. It may be erroneous or even erroneously final, but it is final.

See Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154-156 (Tex. 2023).

Harden v. US Bank, N.A.                                                                 Page 2
       Because there is a final appealable order that the appellant wants to complain

about, we not only have the jurisdiction but also have the duty to take this appeal and get

the bill of review proceeding back on track if we can. Because the Court dismisses the

appeal for want of jurisdiction instead of allowing the appeal to proceed, I respectfully

dissent.

                                            TOM GRAY
                                            Chief Justice

Dissent delivered and filed July 19, 2023

Harden v. US Bank, N.A.                                                              Page 3