in Re Metropolitan Transit Authority

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2006
• Docket: 01-04-01128-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-04-01157-CV

---

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant

V.

EDWARD JACKSON, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2002-43065

---

---

NO. 01-04-01128-CV

---

IN RE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Relator

---

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

CONCURRING OPINION

          It is well-settled Texas law that a judgment is void “only when it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.” Tesco Am., Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., No. 04-0269, 2006 WL 662740, at *4 (Tex. Mar. 17, 2006) (quoting Mapco, Inc.v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990) (emphasis added)).

          Here, it is readily apparent that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the July 16, 2006 judgment because appellee, Edward Jackson, did not send prior notice of the judgment to the executive director of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission as required by section 410.258 of the Texas Labor Code. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.258(a) (Vernon 2006) (party seeking judicial review of administrative decisions of orders concerning workers’ compensation must file proposed judgment by certified mail with Workers’ Compensation Commission not later than 30th day before court is scheduled to enter judgment.). A judgment entered or settlement approved without complying with the requirements of section 410.258 “is void.” Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.258(f) (Vernon 2006). A trial court obviously does not lose plenary power after entering such a void judgment.

          Accordingly, in appellate cause number 01-04-01157-CV, I concur in the judgment of the court affirming the trial court’s October 4, 2004 judgment. I would further deny Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Petition For Writ of Mandamus, which was filed in cause number 01-04-01128-CV in “an excess of caution.”

                                                             Terry Jennings

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Alcala.

Justice Jennings, concurring.