Opinion
No. 08-16-00078-CV
07-27-2016
IN RE MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, RELATOR
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS OPINION
Relator, Midland Funding, LLC, has filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El Paso, County, asking that the Court order Respondent to set aside the judgment entered in favor of Miguel Marquez, the Real Party in Interest, and to dismiss the de novo appeal from the Justice Court. The Court gave Marquez an opportunity to file a response, but none has been filed. We grant mandamus relief.
Factual Background
On August 26, 2013, Midland Funding sued Marquez on an unpaid credit card account in the El Paso Justice of the Peace Court for Precinct 1, Position 1. The JP court entered a default judgment against Marquez on March 27, 2014. Marquez attempted to e-file the appeal bond on the last day for perfecting an appeal, April 17, 2014, but the JP court was not participating in e-filing at that time. Marquez subsequently faxed his appeal bond to the JP court after 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2014. The JP court was closed the following day for Good Friday, so the appeal bond was not filed until April 21, 2014, twenty-five days after the court entered the default judgment. Midland Funding filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the County Court at Law No. 5, but the trial court denied the motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Marquez. Midland Funding appealed, but the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment had not disposed of all pending claims. Midland Funding v. Marquez, No. 08-15-00331-CV, 2016 WL 1613313 (Tex.App.--El Paso April 22, 2016, no pet.)(mem. op.). Midland Funding then filed this mandamus petition to challenge the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over the untimely appeal from the JP Court.
Standard of Review
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 135-36. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its judgment is void, and a party may challenge the void judgment by mandamus. See Miller v. Woods, 872 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1994, orig. proceeding).
Applicable Law
The issue is whether Marquez perfected his appeal by timely filing his appeal bond in the JP court. Rule 506.1 establishes the procedure for appealing from a judgment entered by a justice of the peace court. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 506.1. A party may appeal a judgment by filing a bond, making a cash deposit, or filing a sworn statement of inability pay with the justice court within twenty-one days after the judgment is signed. TEX.R.CIV.P. 506.1(a). An appeal is perfected when a bond, cash deposit, or sworn statement of inability to pay is filed in accordance with Rule 506.1. TEX.R.CIV.P. 506.1(h). The justice court is not authorized to extend the time for a party to perfect an appeal. Rule 500.5(c) expressly states: "The judge may, for good cause shown, extend any time period under these rules except those relating to new trial and appeal." TEX.R.CIV.P. 500.5(c)[Emphasis added]. The Rules of Civil Procedure address the filing of pleadings and motions. Rule 502.1 states:
Except for oral motions made during trial or when all parties are present, every pleading, plea, motion, application to the court for an order, or other form of request must be written and signed by the party or its attorney and must be filed with the court. A document may be filed with the court by personal or commercial delivery, by mail, or electronically, if the court allows electronic filing. Electronic filing is governed by Rule 21.TEX.R.CIV.P. 502.1.
Clear Abuse of Discretion
Marquez's appeal bond was not file-stamped by the JP court until April 21, 2014, four days after the deadline. Marquez asserted in the trial court that he attempted to e-file the appeal bond, but the Justice Court does not permit e-filing. Under Rule 502.1, Marquez's effort to e-file the appeal bond was ineffectual. Additionally, Marquez argued that he faxed his appeal bond to the JP court on April 17, 2014. Rule 502.1 does not permit a party to file any document, including an appeal bond, by fax. At the hearing, Respondent suggested that Marquez timely filed his appeal under the "mail box rule" by faxing it on the due date, but Marquez did not claim or present any evidence that he sent the document by means of the United States mail. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 5 ("If any document is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped and is deposited in the mail on or before the last day for filing same, the same, if received by the clerk not more than ten days tardily, shall be filed by the clerk and be deemed filed in time. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing."). The evidence submitted at the hearing showed only that Marquez faxed the appeal bond. The County Court at Law clearly abused its discretion by denying Midland Funding's motion to dismiss and by granting summary judgment in favor of Marquez.
Adequate Remedy by Appeal
The only remaining issue is whether Midland Funding has shown that it does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. Eventually, Midland Funding will be able to raise the jurisdictional issue in a direct appeal when the remaining claims are finally resolved. Appellate courts have held, however, that when a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has no discretion and must dismiss the case as a ministerial act. Miller v. Woods, 872 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1994, orig. proceeding); Qwest Microwave, Inc. v. Bedard, 756 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding). Mandamus is proper if a trial court issues an order beyond its jurisdiction. In re Southwestern Bell Company, 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding). In a case where the trial court's order is void for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court has abused its discretion and the relator need not show that it does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 605. Thus, appellate courts have held that mandamus review is available where the trial court's action is void as a matter of law. In re Florance, 377 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding).
Midland Funding has established that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Marquez failed to timely perfect his appeal from the JP court to the County Court at Law No. 5. Respondent clearly abused his discretion by refusing to dismiss Marquez's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and by granting summary judgment in Marquez's favor. Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus relief. Respondent is directed to (1) set aside the order denying Midland Funding's motion to dismiss and granting Marquez's motion for summary judgment, and (2) enter an order granting Midland Funding's motion to dismiss Marquez's attempted appeal from the JP court. The writ of mandamus will issue only if Respondent does not comply with this opinion and judgment. July 27, 2016
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.