Court Opinion

ID: 9773179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:38:59.745064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:50.557764
License: Public Domain

OVARD, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority misconstrues the trial court’s letter as an order of recusal under rule 18a1 and rule 18b. The letter appears, more appropriately, to be the trial court’s written notification, sent to the Administrative Judge with copies for all parties in the case, conveying his present feelings or attitude regarding the “current relationship between the District Judges and Commissioner’s Court.” The letter served to put all parties on notice as to the trial court’s concern since Dallas County was a party to the lawsuit.
Although the letter expresses the trial court’s feelings, it is void of language that the trial judge thereby recused himself. Moreover neither the letter nor any document in the record entitled or designated an “order of recusal.” The letter may have been the trial court’s method for notifying all recipients that there may be grounds for a recusal hearing based upon his feelings at that time. Either party could then file a motion to recuse under rule 18a(a). Since no party elected to do so, I would hold that they waived any right to complain, and should not be allowed to do so for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Lee v. Braeburn Valley West Civic Ass’n., 786 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tex.1990); Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W.2d 263, 264 (Tex.1990); Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex.1990); Tex.R.App.P. 52(a). Further, the Texas Supreme Court has stated that, “[Ljetters to counsel are not the kind of documents that constitute a judgment, decision or order_” Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397, 398-99 (Tex.1982) (emphasis added). Although this statement was made in reference to the calculation of appellate deadlines, I feel that it is equally applicable to the recusal situation we are faced with in the present case.
The letter was dated August 30,1988. It was nearly a year later when the trial court granted summary judgment. The Administrative Judge did not assign another judge to preside over the case. The obvious conclusion is that neither judge considered or treated the letter as an order of recusal. *564Because I would hold that the letter announced the judge’s feelings, but failed to effectuate his recusal, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

. All rule references are to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.