From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Linwood v. NCNB Texas

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 13, 1994
885 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. 1994)

Summary

holding findings of fact and conclusions of law "have no place" in a summary judgment proceeding

Summary of this case from Denton v. Wiggins

Opinion

No. 94-0364.

October 13, 1994.

Appeal from 14th District Court, Dallas County, John McClellan Marshall, J.

Don Black, Dallas, for petitioner.

Donald W. Hill, Dallas, for respondent.


This case presents the question of whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court of appeals, holding that it did not, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Without hearing oral argument a majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands to that court for further proceedings. TEX.R.APP.P. 170.

Algie Linwood sued NCNB of Texas, asserting contract and tort claims arising out of the repossession of two trucks. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of NCNB on September 23, 1991. Linwood requested findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 26. He filed his notice of appeal on October 3 and a notice of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 22. On November 15, after the trial court failed to produce findings of fact and conclusions of law and fifty-three days after the summary judgment was signed, Linwood filed his cost bond. The court of appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it held that Linwood's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law did not extend the appellate timetable in a summary judgment case and Linwood's notice of appeal was not a bona fide attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction. 876 S.W.2d 393. Consequently, the court of appeals concluded the appeal was not timely perfected.

Absent a filing that extends the deadline, a party has thirty days from the date the judgment is signed to file his cost bond to perfect his appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 41(a)(1). Linwood filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law in an attempt to extend the appellate timetable. TEX.R.APP.P. 41(a)(1). Because findings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding, the timetable was not extended. We agree with the court of appeals holding that the language "tried without a jury" in rule 41(a)(1) does not include a summary judgment proceeding. The court of appeals, however, has jurisdiction over the appeal if a party files an instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction. Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991); Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments, 776 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tex. 1989).

Linwood filed his notice of appeal well within the thirty-day period after the judgment was signed. Although the court of appeals correctly held that Linwood's notice of appeal was the improper instrument to perfect his appeal, under our holding in Grand Prairie, before dismissing the appeal, the court of appeals would have had to give Linwood an opportunity to correct his error by substituting the correct instrument. Grand Prairie, 813 S.W.2d at 500. Here Linwood corrected his own error 53 days after the judgment was signed by filing his cost bond. We see no reason why a party attempting appeal who corrects his own error should be in a worse position than one who has the error pointed out by the appellate court. We hold that in either situation, the party seeking to appeal has made a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction sufficient to prevent dismissal for want of jurisdiction, as we set forth in Grand Prairie and Blue Water Garden Apartments. For this reason, the court of appeals improperly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SPECTOR, J., not sitting.


Summaries of

Linwood v. NCNB Texas

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 13, 1994
885 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. 1994)

holding findings of fact and conclusions of law "have no place" in a summary judgment proceeding

Summary of this case from Denton v. Wiggins

holding "findings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding"

Summary of this case from Mehan v. Babbel

holding that a request for findings in a case concluded by summary judgment is not useful for appellate review and does not extend appellate deadlines because, by their very nature, summary judgments are decided as a matter of law where no genuine issue of material fact exists

Summary of this case from Shanklin v. Shanklin

holding findings and conclusions "have no place in a summary judgment proceeding"

Summary of this case from Carter v. Perry

holding improper filing of notice of appeal, rather than required cost bond under former rules, sufficed as bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Cisneros v. Cisneros

holding that appellate deadlines are not extended by request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment because they “have no place in a summary judgment proceeding”

Summary of this case from Gardner v. Abbott

holding that appellate deadlines are not extended by request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment because they "have no place in a summary judgment proceeding"

Summary of this case from Gardner v. Abbott

holding that "findings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding"

Summary of this case from Walker v. Callahan

holding notice of appeal filed when not authorized was a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Chavez v. Housing Authority of City of El Paso

In Linwood and Grand Prairie, we held that a party's bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction will preserve its appeal. What is clearly apparent in these opinions is that the procedural defect, which rendered the party's effort at appeal only a bona fide attempt, was correctable.

Summary of this case from Verburgt v. Dorner

noting that "findings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding"

Summary of this case from Martin v. Sicola

noting findings of fact and conclusions of law have "no place" in summary judgment proceeding

Summary of this case from Poledore v. Fraley

noting findings of fact and conclusions of law have "no place" in summary judgment proceeding

Summary of this case from Poledore v. Fraley

noting findings of fact and conclusions of law have "no place" in summary judgment proceeding and are properly disregarded by appellate court

Summary of this case from Poppe v. Poppe

explaining why a request for findings of fact has "no place" in a case concluded by summary judgment and why a request for findings and conclusions does not extend appellate deadlines pursuant to Rule 26.1

Summary of this case from Flathers v. Texas Department of Public Safety

considering predecessor to rule 26.1

Summary of this case from WILSON v. JORDAN MEM CH OF GOD

In Linwood, the appellant filed a notice of appeal when an appeal bond was required to perfect appeal. Linwood, 885 S.W.2d at 102.

Summary of this case from McCray v. Flores

In Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994), and Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. S. Parts Imps., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991), the Texas Supreme Court held that an appellant could amend an inadequate perfecting instrument by filing a different instrument.

Summary of this case from Foster v. Williams

In Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, the Court followed Grand Prairie in holding that an appellant who mistakenly filed a notice of appeal and then filed a cost bond fifty-three days after the judgment was signed, was entitled to appeal. The Court reiterated, "The court of appeals... has jurisdiction over the appeal if a party files an instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction."

Summary of this case from Foster v. Williams

In Linwood, the Texas Supreme Court followed its opinion in Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991), and held that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal even though the cost bond was filed after the 30-day time limit.

Summary of this case from Ashorn v. State

In Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994), and Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991), the Supreme Court held that an appellant could amend an ineffective perfecting instrument by filing a different instrument.

Summary of this case from Greenspan v. Ross

In Linwood, the court broadened the concept of bona fide attempt to include cases in which a notice of appeal was filed even though the appellant may have no legitimate reason to believe that it could have perfected by notice of appeal. Linwood, 885 S.W.2d at 103.

Summary of this case from State v. Organic Composting Resourc

In Linwood, the supreme court held that if an appellant files a notice of appeal, and a notice of appeal is not the appropriate manner of perfecting, the party must be given time to correct the error because the party made a bona fide attempt to invoke our jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from Velasquez v. Teltschik

filing a notice of appeal instead of a cost bond, as required, was a bona fide attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the court

Summary of this case from Jones v. State
Case details for

Linwood v. NCNB Texas

Case Details

Full title:Algie LINWOOD, Petitioner, v. NCNB TEXAS, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Oct 13, 1994

Citations

885 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. 1994)

Citing Cases

Chavez v. Housing Authority of City of El Paso

Chavez, 876 S.W.2d at 417. However, seven months after our opinion issued, the Texas Supreme Court squarely…

Olivo v. State

Appellant urges this Court to adopt the reasoning set out in those opinions, specifically, that jurisdiction…