Court Opinion

ID: 9734532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:37:25.498988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:49.087335
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by:
PAUL W. GREEN, Justice.
In my opinion, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely perfect an appeal. The February 20, 1998 summary judgment order disposed of all parties and claims by the inclusion of a Mother Hubbard clause. A timely motion for new trial was filed, so appellant had a total of 105 days from the date of the order, or until June 5, 1998, to perfect an appeal. However, no attempt was made to perfect an appeal until August 19, 1998, when appellant filed a cash bond. Since the cash bond was filed seventy-five days late, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
The majority instead concludes the Mother Hubbard language is ambiguous and interprets it as providing relief only to the movant, rather than to all parties and claims. This interpretation renders the February 20 order interlocutory and, because of a later severance, the appeal would be timely. The majority’s holding is, however, in conflict with relevant decisions of the supreme court. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
The supreme court has made it clear that the use of Mother Hubbard language in a judgment expresses the intent to make it a final judgment. In North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1966), the supreme court dealt with the “recurring and nagging problem” of the finality of judgments and concluded that a judgment rendered after a conventional trial on the merits would be presumed to dispose of all parties and claims, and went further to suggest language to use in a judgment that would avoid any confusion. Id. at 898. (“[T]he problem [of finality] can be eliminated en*768tirely [] by inclusion in judgments of a simple statement that all relief not expressly granted is deniedThe use of Mother Hubbard language to determine the finality of judgments has since expanded into summary judgment proceedings.
In Schlipf v. Exxon Corp., 644 S.W.2d 453, 454-55 (Tex.1982), the trial court granted Schlipfs motion for summary judgment on his claim for retained royalties, but his claim for prejudgment interest was denied. The summary judgment order included Mother Hubbard language. Both parties appealed. On appeal, an in-tervenor moved to dismiss all appeals for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the summary judgment did not dispose of Schlipfs prejudgment interest claim, making it an unappealable interlocutory partial summary judgment. But the supreme court held the summary judgment order was a final, appealable judgment because it “expressly disposed of all parties and issues in the case” by use of the language suggested in Aldridge.
More recently, in Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993), the supreme court said:
If a summary judgment order appears to be final, as evidenced by the inclusion of language purporting to dispose of all claims or parties, the judgment should be treated as final for purposes of appeal.
866 S.W.2d at 592. (emphasis added). In Mafrige, Ross and Sutter sued twelve parties on various causes of action. Several, but not all, of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motions by separate orders, indicating that “the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant ... should in all things be granted and that Plaintiff ... take nothing against Defendant.” Ross and Sutter appealed. The court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the judgments were interlocutory, failing to dispose of all parties and claims. The supreme court reversed and remanded, holding the language in the order that “Plaintiff ... take nothing against Defendant” was a Mother Hubbard equivalent that “clearly evidenee[d] the trial court’s intent to dispose of all claims.”
The message cannot be more clear. If there is language purporting to dispose of all claims or parties, the judgment is to be treated as a final judgment, even if the trial court was plainly in error in purporting to render a final judgment. The rule is obviously intended to provide a meaningful way of determining when a judgment is final for appeal purposes. The application of the rule can sometimes be harsh, as in this case. But no one has been misled as to the consequence of using Mother Hubbard or equivalent language in a judgment or order. The warnings have been there for those who would look. See Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592 (Mother Hubbard clause has no place in partial summary judgment order); Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.1984) (same); and Schlipf, 644 S.W.2d at 455 (judgment drafted in form of final judgment).
It is the responsibility of the parties to prepare, and of the trial court to sign, a judgment that does no more than what is intended. Words and phrases have meaning and we are not free to disregard what plain English expresses as the intention of the parties.
The majority labors to distinguish this case to avoid the harshness of the Mafrige rule, but it cannot honestly be done. The case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because the majority addresses the merits, I respectfully dissent.