M. Garza Enterprises, Inc. and Everett Holdings, LLC v. Julia Perez

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-23-00110-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 11, 2023; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

M. Garza Enterprises, Inc. and Everett Holdings, LLC appeal a default judgment in a premises liability and gross negligence suit filed by Julia Perez, who sustained injuries after falling off a stool at a bar allegedly owned by Everett Holdings and operated by Garza Enterprises. The trial court issued a $1.5 million default judgment after Perez moved for it, citing Garza Enterprises' failure to respond. The judgment included costs and interest but was later described by the court as "not final" when Garza Enterprises contested the ruling, citing improper service and lack of finality language. 

Garza Enterprises filed a notice of restricted appeal and sought a determination of the judgment's finality, ultimately agreeing with the trial court that the default judgment was not final and, therefore, not appealable. The Court of Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as it can only review final judgments unless an exception applies, which was not the case here. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A judgment following a trial is presumed final, whereas a default judgment lacks this presumption. A judgment is considered final when it disposes of all claims and parties or explicitly states its finality. For a judgment to be deemed final, it must clearly indicate it resolves every claim and party involved, with reviewing courts examining the record only if the judgment's finality is ambiguous. No specific language is mandated for clarity, but mere declarations of finality, appealability, or inclusion of a Mother Hubbard clause are insufficient on their own.

In the case at hand, although the default judgment was labeled “Final Judgment” and contained a Mother Hubbard clause, it failed to provide a definitive statement of finality. The trial court noted that the default judgment “is not final,” but this alone did not alter its status since it did not explicitly vacate or modify the judgment. The default judgment was found not to be final as it did not address Perez’s gross-negligence claim, which was not included in her motion for default judgment. The awarded damages of $1.5 million were compensatory, and exemplary damages, sought in relation to the gross-negligence claim, are not categorized as damages suffered by a plaintiff, thus further supporting the conclusion that the judgment did not fully dispose of all claims.

The court awarded prejudgment interest on a $1.5 million award, noting that such interest cannot be assessed on exemplary damages, as per TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. 41.007. Additionally, exemplary damages must be calculated based on the amount of compensatory damages awarded, preventing their inclusion in the $1.5 million lump sum. The trial court's order granting Perez's motion for default judgment is deemed not a final, appealable judgment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, with all pending motions denied as moot. Both Garza Enterprises and Perez sought costs for the appeal; however, since the appeal was dismissed without reaching the merits, no prevailing party is identified. Consequently, each party is responsible for its own costs related to the appeal, with no good cause found to tax costs against either party. Sanctions were also not assessed.