Supreme Court of Texas, No. 12-0501 (August 23, 2013)
Per Curiam
Ken Carroll
In a per curiam opinion the Texas Supreme Court confirmed what it had earlier said in dicta regarding the extension of appellate deadlines by virtue of post-trial motions filed before a trial court issues its final judgment. A variety of post-trial motions (e.g., for new trial or to modify or amend a judgment) extend appellate deadlines. Ordinarily such a motion filed prematurely, before judgment, has the same effect; the movant need not refile the motion after final judgment is entered to effect the extension. But in 2005 the Supreme Court held that when a judgment grants all relief sought in a previously filed post-trial motion, that motion is deemed subsumed in the judgment and no extension of the appellate deadlines occurs. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563-64 (Tex. 2005). Here, the trial court entered its original judgment and Brighton then timely filed a motion to modify, correct, or reform that judgment. Thereafter, the court issued an amended judgment that granted some, but not all, of the relief sought by Brighton’s motion. Because Brighton filed her notice of appeal more than 30 days (but less than 90 days) after that amended judgment, the court of appeals dismissed her appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, reiterating in its holding what it had suggested in dicta in Wilkins—that when a judgment entered after a post-trial motion does not grant all relief sought by that motion, the motion is not subsumed by the later judgment and the motion does extend the appellate deadlines.
