X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
OPINION

Khosrow Sadeghian brought suit against Willie Shaw alleging nonpayment of a debt arising from a contract for the sale of real estate. The county court, in its final order, purported to rescind a previously granted motion for new trial and a motion to transfer venue and to render a final take-nothing judgment against all parties. Although Sadeghian raises several issues for appellate review, the dispositive challenge contends that the county court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment because the court’s plenary power had expired when the judgment was rendered. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the county court’s judgment.

In May of 1999, Sadeghian filed his original petition in small claims court in Denton County, alleging that Shaw had failed to pay a debt in the amount of $4,400.00. Shaw filed a motion to transfer venue, and the court transferred the case to a justice court in Fannin County. Shaw also filed a counterclaim for $5,643.07 in damages, plus additional damages under the Texas Business and Commerce Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and for attorney’s fees. Sadeghian failed to appear at the scheduled trial on May 30, 2000, and the justice court rendered a default judgment against Sadeghian in favor of Shaw for $5,000.00 in damages and $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees. On June 7, 2000, Sadeghian filed an appeal bond seeking to appeal to the county court of Fannin County. The justice court approved the bond and waived the bond amount. Shaw then filed a motion in the county court to dismiss Sadeghian’s appeal on the ground that the county court was without jurisdiction because Sadeghian’s appeal bond did not satisfy Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requirements as to the amount of the bond. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 143a. Shaw succeeded on his motion and, in October of 2000, the county court dismissed the appeal. After this, Sadeghian filed a motion in the county court for a new trial, or in the alternative, to reinstate the case so that he could properly file his appeal. The county court granted Sadeghian’s request for a new trial in December of 2000. Sadeghian then filed a corrected appeal bond for $20,000.00. On March 1, 2001, the county court dismissed the case, ordering that all parties take nothing, and one day later the court reinstated the same case to the docket, finding that it had been dismissed by accident. This was followed, in the middle of May, by Shaw’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to transfer to the district court of Fannin County, on the grounds that the district court had exclusive jurisdiction of the matter. The county court granted the motion to transfer on June 6, 2001. Despite this transfer, on September 7, 2001, the same county court filed an order in which it stated that it had reconsidered its previous orders and had now decided the following: the order dated October 20, 2000, which dismissed Sadeghian’s original appeal, was affirmed; the order dated March 1, 2001, which dismissed the case with all parties taking nothing was affirmed; the order dated March 1, 2001, which reinstated the case was vacated; the order dated June 6, 2001, which transferred the case to the district court was vacated; and, in summation, Sadeghian’s appeal was dismissed with prejudice. It appears that at this point, the county court’s intention was for all parties to take nothing. In late October of 2001, Sadeghian unsuccessfully moved for a new trial.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
November 27, 2024
London

Celebrating achievement, excellence, and innovation in the legal profession in the UK.


Learn More
December 02, 2024 - December 03, 2024
Scottsdale, AZ

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!


Learn More
December 11, 2024
Las Vegas, NV

This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.


Learn More

Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the New York office for an attorney in our renowned Labor & Employment Department, working...


Apply Now ›

Our client, a large, privately-owned healthcare company, has engaged us to find an Assistant General Counsel for their headquarters located ...


Apply Now ›

A prestigious matrimonial law firm in Garden City is seeking a skilled Associate Attorney with 5 to 7 years of experience in family law. The...


Apply Now ›