Mauricio Vallejo, Jr v. Desirhea Helge and Darius Dorrough

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 15, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00573-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismiss and Opinion Filed November 15, 2023

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00573-CV

MAURICIO VALLEJO, JR, Appellant V. DESIRHEA HELGE AND DARIUS DORROUGH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13613

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Carlyle We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s

judgment appeared to have been signed outside the trial court’s plenary power,

making the judgment void. See State v. ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486

(Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (“Judicial action taken after a court’s jurisdiction has

expired is a nullity.”). The record in this case shows the underlying cause was

initially dismissed for want of prosecution on November 6, 2022. Appellees filed a

timely motion to reinstate, which the trial court granted on January 12, 2023. Thereafter, the trial court granted a default judgment on March 9, 2023. This appeal

followed.

Although a timely filed motion to reinstate extends a trial court’s plenary

power over a case to seventy-five days from the date of judgment, the motion must

be verified. McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam). Here, the motion to reinstate was timely, but it was not verified. As a

result, the trial court’s plenary power over the underlying case expired on December

6, 2022, thirty days after the judgment was signed. See id.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d).

Because the order of reinstatement and the subsequent default judgment were signed

outside the trial court’s plenary power to do so, they are void.

We informed the parties by letter that when an appeal is taken from a void

judgment, we have jurisdiction only to vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal.

Both appellant and appellees agree the trial court’s order of reinstatement and

subsequent default judgment are void, although appellees suggest that because

appellant did not seek a writ of mandamus to vacate the reinstatement order,

appellees were entitled to rely upon it to seek the default judgment. We find no merit

in appellee’s assertion. When, as here, an appeal is taken from a void judgment, we

must vacate the void judgment and dismiss the appeal. See Freedom Commc’ns, Inc.

v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (“[A]ppellate courts do not have

jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void orders or judgments; rather,

–2– they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or judgment underlying the

appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that determination.”).

Accordingly, on the record before us, we vacate the January 12, 2023 order of

reinstatement and the March 9, 2023 default judgment and dismiss this appeal.

/Cory L. Carlyle/ 230573f.p05 CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE

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

MAURICIO VALLEJO, JR, On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13613. No. 05-23-00573-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Goldstein and Breedlove DESIRHEA HELGE AND DARIUS participating. DORROUGH, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s January 12, 2023 order of reinstatement and March 9, 2023 default judgment are VACATED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 15th day of November, 2023.

–4–