Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Texas

I was reading court opinions last night and discovered something very interesting. The original suit was filed in Federal Court.

1) A Settlement Agreement was reached October 2, 2009.

2) On October 3, 2009 the Settlement Agreement was approved by the Judge.

3) On or around October 15, 2009, Countrywide amended it's original answer to the Garnishment stating they were now indebted to Lopez and that on or before October 22, 2009 they would be depositing settlement funds into the Registry of the United States District Court Southern District of Texas.

4) On October 22, 2009 Countrywide Paid the Money into the courts registry. They did not obey the Garnishment Order, they followed the Settlement Agreement.

5) On November 17, 2009 The Creditor filed an Intervention in the Law Suit. On the date of the Settlement agreement, the Creditor was not a party to the suit. In the Settlement Agreement The Creditor is not even named. The Settlement was Final and signed by the court. After it was final and signed by the court, does the court lose Plenary Power 30-days later. The Plea was filed but the Judgment (Settlement Agreement was never set aside) Here is a case that discusses this: http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=15775

As a general proposition, "[a] non-party may . . . successfully intervene post-judgment provided that both the plea is filed and the judgment is set aside within thirty days from judgment." Malone v. Hampton, 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) (citing In re Barrett, 149 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2004, orig. proceeding). "Furthermore, a plea in intervention comes too late if filed after judgment and may not be considered unless and until the judgment has been set aside." Texans United Educ. Fund v. Texaco, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 38, 40-41 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); see First Alief Bank v. White, 682 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1984) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing Comal County Rural High School Dist. No. 705 v. Nelson, 158 Tex. 546, 314 S.W.2d 956 (1958)). More importantly, however,

[a]ny document, other than a motion to enforce or clarify, filed after the expiration of the trial court's plenary jurisdiction, would be a nullity as a suit ends when the trial court's plenary power over the proceeding ends. The very purpose of limiting a trial court's plenary power over a proceeding is to foreclose the possibility of suit continuing indefinitely even through a final judgment has been obtained. http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/10/10010410.pdf

6) On March 25, 2010 the Federal Court ordered payment of Attorney fee's out of the Courts registry.

7) On march 31, 2010 the Federal Court approved the Creditors Intervention and ordered the money held in the courts registry to be transferred to the State District Court of Nueces County Texas to determine the character of the funds.

8) On or around April 1, 2010 the United States Federal Court Southern District of Texas dismissed the Federal Suit based on the Settlement Agreement reached on October 2, 2009.

So in summary, when the Creditor filed the Intervention the Federal courts, did the Federal Courts plenary power expire? If it had not expired, then it would be up to the creditor to set aside the Settlement Agreement. Neither of these were done. The Intervention was not filed in a timely manner and the Settlement Agreement was not set aside. The creditor was not even named as a party to the Settlement Agreement.

Countrywide followed through with what they were supposed to do, deposit the money into the courts registry. The Federal Case is now closed. The only thing left is to give me my money. Somehow we have two cases co-mingled here. One case is a garnishment action in State Court that is an active suit and the other is a Federal Case that has been closed. If the Federal Suit is closed then I should have my money in my hand. It cannot be closed if their is outstanding issues that need to be addressed? And if it is closed, then apparently all issues have been resolved.The Intervention is also dismissed. Transferring the decision as to the character of the funds to State Courts Garnishment Suit does not answer the Federal Courts Question of Novel Texas Law and certainly does not follow the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

So do we have an issue here of Jurisdiction? I would think so if the Federal Courts Plenary Power has expired. Anything the State Trial Court rules on now is NULL. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Case anymore. The Federal Case is CLOSED the money made it to the Registry in my name and my name alone. Read this case.

http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=2079

When a final judgment has been rendered, a plea in intervention comes too late and cannot be considered unless and until the trial court sets aside its final judgment. First State Bank v. White, 682 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1984); Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunker, 799 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Highlands Ins. Co. v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 794 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ). The rule applies to an attempt to intervene even during the trial court's plenary power. Dunker, 799 S.W.2d at 336; Highlands, 794 S.W.2d at 604. Here, the trial court's take-nothing judgment, based on the parties' settlement agreement, was a final judgment. Following this judgment and during the trial court's plenary power, the Division petitioned to intervene in the proceedings. Although the trial court modified its final judgment by granting the de la Zerdas' motion to allocate the settlement proceeds, the court never set aside its original final judgment. See Anderson v. Keim, 943 S.W.2d 938, 944 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no writ h.) (trial court can only set aside its judgment by express, written order).

Because the trial court never set aside its original judgment, the Division's plea in intervention could not, as a matter of law, be considered and it never became a party to the suit below. Consequently, the Division could not appeal, and we cannot assert jurisdiction. Highlands, 794 S.W.2d at 604. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Thanks for taking a look.

Steve

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in Texas

Looking for something else?