Background
The trial court entered a final judgment on November 20, 2025. On January 16, 2026, Marcelo Ramon Mora filed a combined motion for new trial, objection to the appellees’ proposed judgment, and motion to modify the judgment. Invoking Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, the motion asserted that counsel had not received notice of the judgment and acquired actual knowledge of it on January 12, 2026. Another attorney for Mora verified those assertions.
After a February hearing, the trial court treated January 12 as the controlling date. It entered an amended final judgment on March 25, 2026, later denied Mora’s post-judgment motions, and Mora filed a notice of appeal on May 1. On rehearing, Mora relied on a transcript of the February hearing that was not part of the appellate record. The court denied the amended motion for rehearing, withdrew its July 23 memorandum and judgment, and substituted the present opinion and judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Mora did not reinvoke the trial court’s plenary power under Rule 306a. His sworn motion addressed when counsel received notice and when counsel acquired actual knowledge, but it did not negate the possibility that Mora himself learned of the November 20 judgment within twenty days. It also failed to address whether attorney Lauren Lucio acquired actual knowledge within that period.
Even if the court considered the February hearing transcript, the result would not change. The hearing established a stipulated date for receipt of notice but was silent about when Mora acquired actual knowledge of the judgment. Because the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 306a were not satisfied, the trial court’s plenary power expired on December 22, 2025, making the March 25 amended judgment void. The court vacated that judgment, leaving the November 20 judgment intact, and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 306a motion must address both receipt of the required notice and acquisition of actual knowledge.
- The motion must negate timely notice or actual knowledge as to the party and all of the party’s attorneys.
- A judgment entered after the trial court’s plenary power expires is void and cannot support an appeal on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 306a’s requirements are jurisdictional, not technical formalities. A party seeking to restart post-judgment deadlines must make the required sworn showing for the party and counsel; proof concerning receipt of notice alone does not establish the absence of actual knowledge.
Practitioners should ensure that a Rule 306a motion expressly identifies when every relevant party and attorney first received notice or acquired actual knowledge. An incomplete showing can leave the original judgment in place and render later trial-court orders void.