Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00515-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN THE INTEREST OF S.G.H. AND W.C.H., CHILDREN ON APPEAL FROM THE 361ST DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña Appellant (Mother) filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship based on an underlying final decree of divorce and appellee (Father) filed a counterpetition in response. 1 After four years of inaction in the case, the trial court signed an order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution on November 6, 2019 (original cause). Father subsequently filed a petition for bill of review in a separate cause (bill of review cause) 1 We refer to the parties by pseudonyms in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d). which the trial court granted, vacating the earlier dismissal order. 2 On August 15, 2024, the trial court signed an order in the original cause modifying the parent-child relationship. Mother now challenges that order, arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in granting Father’s bill of review. 3 We hold that the trial court lacked plenary power to render the August 15, 2024 order in the original cause. Therefore, without reaching the merits of Mother’s argument regarding the bill of review, we vacate the August 15, 2024 order in the original cause and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 4 I. JURISDICTION We may sua sponte review our jurisdiction over an appeal as courts are obligated to ascertain that subject matter jurisdiction exists regardless of whether the parties have raised it. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Self, 690 S.W.3d 12, 20 (Tex. 2024); Nunu v. Risk, 567 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). “[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void orders; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that determination.” Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam). “A bill of review is an equitable proceeding brought by a party seeking to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer subject to challenge by a motion for new trial or appeal.” 2 Mother appealed the grant of bill of review, but the Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the order “d[id] not dispose of the merits of the underlying controversy.” In re S.H., No. 10-24-00176-CV, 2024 WL 3616954, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 1, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). 3 Father has not filed a brief to assist us in the resolution of this appeal. 4 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket- equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.220(a), 73.001. 2 WWLC Inv., L.P. v. Miraki, 624 S.W.3d 796, 799 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam)); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(f) (providing that on expiration of time within which trial court has plenary power, “a judgment cannot be set aside by the trial court except by bill of review for sufficient cause”). When a trial court grants a bill of review and sets aside an earlier judgment in a prior case, the subsequent trial on the merits must occur in the bill of review proceeding and not the underlying case in which the judgment is vacated. Alaimo v. U.S. Bank Tr. Nat’l Ass’n, 551 S.W.3d 212, 216 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.); Retzlaff v. Mendieta-Morales, 356 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.); see also White v. Walsh, No. 04-18-00609-CV, 2019 WL 3432091, *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (collecting cases). Here, the trial court granted Father’s petition for bill of review, thereby vacating the judgment in the original cause so that the case could be retried. See Alaimo, 551 S.W.3d at 216. However, instead of retrying the case in the bill of review cause, the trial court signed an order modifying the parent-child relationship in the original cause. A judgment in a bill of review proceeding does not restore a trial court’s plenary power in the underlying cause. Alaimo, 551 S.W.3d at 217–18. The trial court signed the order of dismissal in the original cause on November 6, 2019, and issued the modification order in the original cause on August 15, 2024, long after its plenary power over the original cause had expired. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3); TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4); see also In re Off. of Atty. Gen. of Tex., No. 04-11-00671-CV, 2011 WL 6090173, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 7, 2011, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (“[A] trial court that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction retains jurisdiction of the parties and matters, [but] 3 the trial court is not authorized to reinstate a dismissed case outside its plenary power.”). Therefore, the August 15, 2024 order in the original cause is void. See In re Dansby, 583 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) (explaining that judicial action taken after the trial court’s plenary power expires is void). We do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from a void judgment or order. Freedom Commc’ns, 372 S.W.3d at 623. When a party attempts to appeal a void order, the appellate court must vacate the order and dismiss the appeal. Id.; see State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). II. CONCLUSION We vacate the trial court’s August 15, 2024 order and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 20th day of August, 2026. 4