Background
A final judgment was entered against appellant Marcelo Ramon Mora on November 20, 2025. Mora’s attorneys claimed they did not receive notice of the judgment from the clerk and only acquired actual knowledge of it on January 12, 2026, well after the standard 30-day period for post-judgment motions had passed. On January 16, 2026, Mora’s counsel filed a motion for a new trial, seeking to extend the post-judgment deadlines under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, which provides a remedy for parties who do not receive timely notice of a judgment.
The motion was supported by a sworn verification from one of Mora’s two attorneys, stating he did not have timely knowledge. For reasons not clear in the record, the trial court then entered an amended final judgment on March 25, 2026, and subsequently denied the motion for a new trial. Mora filed a notice of appeal on May 1, 2026, attempting to appeal the March amended judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Mora failed to properly reinvoke the trial court’s plenary power because his Rule 306a motion was fatally defective. To extend post-judgment deadlines, Rule 306a requires the moving party to prove in a sworn motion that neither the party *nor* their attorney had notice or knowledge of the judgment within 20 days of its signing. Mora’s motion failed because it did not address whether Mora himself had acquired knowledge of the judgment, nor did it address whether his other attorney of record, Lauren Lucio, had acquired knowledge. The sworn statement from only one of his two attorneys was insufficient.
Because the Rule 306a motion was defective, the trial court’s plenary power expired 30 days after the original November 20, 2025 judgment. Consequently, the amended judgment entered on March 25, 2026, was void. The appellate court declared the amended judgment void, vacated it, and dismissed the appeal. The court also noted that even if the motion had been valid, the appeal would still have been untimely, as the May 1, 2026 notice of appeal was filed more than 90 days after counsel claimed to have received notice on January 12, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- To extend post-judgment deadlines under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, a sworn motion must affirmatively negate timely notice or knowledge for both the party *and all* of the party’s attorneys of record.
- A Rule 306a motion that only attests to the knowledge of one attorney, while failing to address the knowledge of the client or other counsel, is insufficient to reinvoke a trial court’s expired jurisdiction.
- Any judgments or orders entered by a trial court after its plenary power has expired are void, and an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a void order.
- Practitioners must be careful to calculate appellate deadlines correctly even when Rule 306a applies; the 90-day deadline (if a new trial motion is filed) runs from the date of notice or knowledge, not from the date of a subsequent void order.
Why It Matters
This opinion serves as a stark procedural warning to Texas attorneys about the exacting requirements for extending post-judgment deadlines. The court’s strict application of Rule 306a underscores that there is no room for error when attempting to reinvoke a trial court’s jurisdiction. A simple oversight, such as failing to account for the knowledge of the client or all attorneys on the case, can render a motion ineffective and forfeit a client’s right to appeal entirely.
The case highlights the unforgiving nature of jurisdictional deadlines in appellate practice. Practitioners must ensure their sworn motions are comprehensive and meticulously drafted to avoid the outcome here: a voided judgment and a dismissed appeal. It demonstrates that courts will not hesitate to dismiss appeals, even on their own motion, when jurisdictional prerequisites are not met, making careful adherence to procedural rules paramount.