# Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · March 3, 2000 · 10 S.W.3d 308

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634577

## Case

- **Full name:** LANE BANK EQUIPMENT CO., Petitioner, v. SMITH SOUTHERN EQUIPMENT, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 3, 2000
- **Citations:** 10 S.W.3d 308; 2000 WL 4866
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Enoch
- **Judges:** Abbott, Baker, Enoch, Gonzales, Hankinson, Hecht, O'Neill, Owen, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 362 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634577

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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
- holding that any post- judgment motion, no matter what it is called, will extend plenary power if it seeks a substantive change in the judgment and is filed within the time limits for a motion for new trial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634577. Public record. Not legal advice.