Angela Wilganowski v. Sharon Hemphill

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00541-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 26, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00541-CV ——————————— ANGELA WILGANOWSKI, Appellant V. SHARON HEMPHILL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2018-90866A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Angela Wilganowski, appealed the trial court’s April 3, 2025

judgment. The same day that Appellant filed her notice of appeal, the trial court

granted her motion for new trial. Granting a new trial has the legal effect of vacating the judgment and returning

the case to the trial docket as though there was no previous trial or hearing. In re

Walker, 265 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig.

proceeding). The trial court “essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.”

Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005).

This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain

appealable interlocutory orders. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422

S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012). When a motion for new trial is granted, the appeal

becomes moot, and we lose jurisdiction over the appeal because there is no longer a

final judgment. See Chatman v. Nazim, No. 01-24-00445-CV, 2024 WL 3974149,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Here, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for new trial while it still had

plenary power. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (e). As a result, the trial court’s judgment

was effectively vacated. See Walker, 265 S.W.3d at 550. The appeal was rendered

moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Chatman, 2024 WL

3974149, at *1.

On July 29, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the Court

might dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a response was filed within

10 days demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction. No response was filed.

2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Caughey and Johnson.