Texas Attorney General Opinion: LO97-015 Page: 2 of 7
7 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 2 (L097-015)
Administration Act, Government Code chapter 74, the supreme court has "supervisory and
administrative control over the judicial branch and is responsible for the orderly and efficient
administration ofjustice."3 Moreover, under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, no proposed local
rule is effective until the supreme court has approved it.! But we do not understand the rule approval
process to be an appropriate venue for determining whether Government Code section 74.093
prevails over section 25.0232, particularly where you have not informed us that the supreme court
was apprised of the conflict between the two statutes. Accordingly, we believe the court's approval
ofBrazos County's local rules is in no way equivalent to a judicial decision that Government Code
section 74.093 prevails over Government Code section 25.0232, and we decline to reach such a
conclusion.
We think the issue you mean to raise is whether, assuming that the cases filed with the county
clerk that should have been filed with the district clerk were improperly filed, judgments issued in the
cases are valid. In general, a judgment is void only if the court rendering the judgment lacked
jurisdiction.' In this case, although the cases were filed with the wrong clerk of court, the courts
issuing the judgments had jurisdiction over the cases. Consequently, the judgments are not void
because they were filed incorrectly. Moreover, we do not believe the judgments are voidable by
reason of the improper filing. A voidable judgment is one rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction that appears to be valid but that is, in fact, erroneous or irregular by reason of some latent
defect.' While the judgments in the cases about which you ask may be irregular because of the
improper filing, the filing error pertains simply to the administration of the case; presumably, it does
not affect the merits of the case in any way, nor does it render the judgment unfair to any of the
parties.' Because we must presume a judgment valid where the rendering court had jurisdiction,' we
conclude that the judgments about which you ask are neither void nor voidable simply because they
were improperly filed. This is especially true, we think, where the cases were filed in good-faith
reliance upon the supreme court's approval of the local rules of court administration.
3Gov't Code 74.021.
TE. R Crv. P. 3a(3).
547 TEx. JUt 3D Judgments 70 (1986) (and cases cited therein). A valid and enforceable judgment is supported
by three elements: (1) the court has jurisdiction of the parties; (2) the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter; and (3)
the court is authorized to make the particular judgment. 46 AM. JUR. 2D Judgments 16 (1994).
647 TEX. JUR. 3D Judgments 71 (1986).
7See 46 AM. JuR. 2DJudgments 20 (1994) (stating that judgment is irregular where proper rules of procedure
have not been followed or where some necessary act has been done improperly).
sSeeAutryv.Autry, 830 S.W.2d 140, 141-42 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1992, nowrit) (quoting BLAcK's
LAw DICTIONARY 547 (4th ed. 1968)) (differentiating directory statutes or rules of procedure from mandatory statutes or
rules ofprocedre); 46 AM. JUR. 2DJudgments 20 (1994); cf 47 TEX. JUR. 3D Judgments 71 (1986) (using as example
of voidable judgment one obtained by fraud).946 AM. JUR. 2D Judgments 34 (1994).
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: LO97-015, text, March 5, 1997; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth277199/m1/2/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.