Court Opinion

ID: 9398397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 06:10:11.954055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.336881
License: Public Domain

Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 23, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00003-CV

SHELBY BLACK AND DALLAS COUNTY RECOVERY, LLC, Appellants
                           V.
  EMILIO NUNEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF GABINO NUNEZ,
                         Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 95th District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12602

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      This appeal challenges a default judgment that provided in the first paragraph

as follows:

            On this day came on to be considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for
      Final Judgment. The Court, having considered the Motion, the
      pleadings on file in the case, and the evidence presented, finds that the
      motion should be GRANTED[.]

After stating that the trial court had jurisdiction and the material allegations of

plaintiff’s petition had been proven, itemizing the recoverable actual damages, and
awarding pre- and post-judgment interest and court costs, the judgment concluded

with this language:

             IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce
      this judgment through abstract, execution, and any other process
      necessary. This is a final judgment and can be appealed.

The judgment was signed September 30, 2021, but the appeal was not filed until

December 29, 2022, well over a year later. Because the appeal appeared untimely,

we questioned our jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (providing deadline for

filing appeal ranging from thirty days from judgment to six months from judgment,

depending on circumstances); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C.,

302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing

of notice of appeal is jurisdictional).

      Relying on Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) and In re

L.C.R., No. 05-17-00085-CV, 2018 WL 2676467 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 5, 2018,

no pet.) (mem. op.), appellants assert in jurisdictional briefing filed at our request

that the judgment was not final because it did not “actually dispose[] of all claims

and parties” before the court–specifically, it did not dispose of appellee’s claim for

punitive damages–or state[] with “unmistakable clarity” that it disposed of all claims

and parties. However, they maintain, the judgment was made final by the trial court’s

December 6, 2022 order denying their motion for new trial and, because the notice

of appeal was filed within thirty days of that order, the appeal was timely. In

                                          –2–
response, appellee asserts, in part, that the judgment was final on its face. We agree

with appellee.

      A judgment that does not follow a conventional trial on the merits, such as a

default judgment, need not actually dispose of every party and claim before the court

in order to be final and appealable so long as it includes “‘clear and unequivocal’

indicia of finality.”   See Patel v. Nations Renovations, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154-55

(Tex. 2023). A judgment that includes a combination of statements that describe the

trial court’s actions as (1) final, (2) disposing of all claims and parties, and (3)

appealable reflects an intent to completely dispose of the entire case. See id. at 155.

Examples of statements or actions that in combination indicate finality include

      •a statement that the judgment is final;
      •a statement that the judgment is appealable;
      •a statement that all relief not granted is denied;
      •an award of costs;
      •an award of pre-and/or post-judgment interest; and,
      •an order authorizing enforcement of the judgment.

See id.; Krawiec v. Holt, No. 05-17-00307-CV, 2018 WL 2126858, *4 (Tex. App.—

Dallas May 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).

      The judgment here indicates a clear intent to dispose of the entire case. It

begins by stating that the court considered “the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final

Judgment” (italics added) and concludes with five of the six indicia of finality listed

above: (1) a statement that the judgment is final; (2) a statement that the judgment is

                                         –3–
appealable; (3) an award of costs; (4) an award of pre- and post-judgment interest;

and, (5) an order permitting enforcement of the judgment.

      Because the judgment includes “clear and unequivocal” indicia of finality, it

was final and the notice of appeal was due within thirty days of the date the judgment

was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Having been filed well over a year later, the

notice of appeal failed to invoke our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal. See id. 42.3(a).

230003f.p05                                /Bonnie Lee Goldstein//
                                           BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –4–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

SHELBY BLACK AND DALLAS                     On Appeal from the 95th District
COUNTY RECOVERY, LLC,                       Court, Dallas County, Texas
Appellants                                  Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12602.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice
No. 05-23-00003-CV         V.               Goldstein, Justices Nowell and
                                            Breedlove participating.
EMILIO NUNEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND A/N/F OF GABINO NUNEZ,
Appellee

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

      We ORDER that appellee Emilio Nunez, Individually and a/n/f of Gabino
Nunez recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Shelby Black and
Dallas County Recovery, LLC.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of May 2023.

                                      –5–