Court Opinion

ID: 9811338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:17:43.519162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:39.984280
License: Public Domain

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the majority’s result in this case, I respectfully write separately to voice my departure from its analysis in one respect.
The majority cites Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver for the proposition that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 118 allows for an amendment to the return at any time up until a judgment has been entered. 884 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex.1994); see also Tex.R. Civ. P. 118. However, that portion of Primate is mere dicta because in that default judgment there was no amendment to the return or attempt to amend the return. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 153. The issue of whether someone had effectively and timely filed for an amendment to the return was simply not before the court. Id. The court was merely reciting the fact that rule 118 provides a remedy to a plaintiff who has improperly served a defendant. Thus, I would hold that because appellee’s rule 118 motion was filed after the trial court’s plenary power expired as opposed to after judgment, it was untimely.