Berger v. Berger

Court of Appeals of Texas

Berger v. Berger

497 S.W.2d 453, 1973 Tex. App. LEXIS 3001

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 13, 1973

Docket6321

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 497 S.W.2d 453 (Berger v. Berger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berger v. Berger, 497 S.W.2d 453, 1973 Tex. App. LEXIS 3001 (Tex. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PRESLAR, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the trial Court denying appellant any relief in her suit for annulment of her marriage to appellee. We are of the opinion that the Court was without jurisdiction to render the judgment which it rendered.

Citation was by publication. Trial was held three days before the appearance day of the respondent so cited. In response to a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial Judge concluded: “That this Court had no jurisdiction to have a hearing of this cause on October 13th, 1972.” The citation ordered the respondent to appear by filing his written answer on or before October 16, 1972. The trial Court made a determination of the merits of the case — denied the annulment. In that, we think the Court erred, for having determined that it was without jurisdiction the Court could not pass judgment on a cause which was not before it. There is no question of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, for the matters alluded to appear in the judgment itself and elsewhere in the record. It also appears that no attorney has been appointed to defend after appearance date.

The judgment of the trial Court is here held to be void. Time has cured the impediment to the trial Court’s jurisdiction, and this cause is remanded to the trial Court for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PRESLAR, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the trial Court denying appellant any relief in her suit for annulment of her marriage to appellee. We are of the opinion that the Court was without jurisdiction to render the judgment which it rendered.

Citation was by publication. Trial was held three days before the appearance day of the respondent so cited. In response to a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial Judge concluded: “That this Court had no jurisdiction to have a hearing of this cause on October 13th, 1972.” The citation ordered the respondent to appear by filing his written answer on or before October 16, 1972. The trial Court made a determination of the merits of the case — denied the annulment. In that, we think the Court erred, for having determined that it was without jurisdiction the Court could not pass judgment on a cause which was not before it. There is no question of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, for the matters alluded to appear in the judgment itself and elsewhere in the record. It also appears that no attorney has been appointed to defend after appearance date.

The judgment of the trial Court is here held to be void. Time has cured the impediment to the trial Court’s jurisdiction, and this cause is remanded to the trial Court for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.2d 453, 1973 Tex. App. LEXIS 3001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berger-v-berger-texapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack