holding that “any change to a judgment made by the trial court while it retains plenary jurisdiction will restart the appellate timetable under Rule 329b(h), but only a motion seeking a substantive change will extend the appellate deadlines and the court’s plenary power under Rule 329b(g)” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- holding that “any change to a judgment made by the trial court while it retains plenary jurisdiction will restart the appellate timetable under Rule 329b(h), but only a motion seeking a substantive change will extend the appellate deadlines and the court’s plenary power under Rule 329b(g)” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)
- holding that any change to a judgment made by the trial court while it retains plenary jurisdiction will restart the appellate timetable, but only a motion seeking a substantive change will extend the appellate deadlines and the trial court’s plenary power
- holding that "a timely filed postjudgment motion that seeks a substantive change in an existing judgment qualifies as a motion to modify under Rule 329b(g), thus extending the trial court's plenary jurisdiction and the appellate timetable"
- explaining that the filing of a motion for new trial or a motion to modify, correct or reform the judgment within the initial thirty-day period extends the trial court’s jurisdiction over its judgment up to an additional seventy-five days
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice ENOCH,
joined by Justice OWEN, concurring.
I agree with Justice Hecht’s conclusions except to the extent he would permit a postjudgment motion that requests relief that could be included in the judgment to extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction and the time for perfecting an appeal. The time-focus of Rule 329b 1 is predicated *323 on a motion assailing the judgment. Consequently, the postjudgment motion must target the judgment in order to extend the court’s plenary jurisdiction under Rule 329b.
Rule 329b(g) refers to a “motion to modify, correct, or reform a judgment.” 2 At a minimum, the motion must alert the court to the fact that the movant wants the judgment changed — whether because of the nature of the relief requested or by an explicit request that the judgment be changed. A request for relief that could, but need not, be included in a final judgment is not sufficient.
In any event, I agree with Justice Hecht that a timely-filed postjudgment motion that seeks a change in an existing judgment, whether or not the change sought is material or substantial, qualifies as a Rule 329b(g) motion to modify. Because the Court holds that the change must be substantial, I .can only concur in the judgment.
. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 329b(g).
. Id.