law-void | voidable | contrary to public policy illegality | void for lack of jurisdiction | plenary power |
unconscionable void contract
VOID - VOIDNESS
VOID ORDERS - PLENARY POWER EXPIRED
Any action taken by a trial court after it loses plenary power is void. See In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d
570, 571 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) (original proceeding) (order granting new trial after expiration of
plenary power is void for want of jurisdiction); Malone v. Hampton, 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex .App.-
Dallas 2006, no pet.) (“Judicial action taken after the expiration of the court's jurisdiction is a nullity,
and any orders signed outside the court's plenary jurisdiction are void.”).
Judicial action taken after the trial court's plenary power has expired is void. In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d
570, 571 (Tex. 1998); State ex rel Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995).
In Re Discount Rental, Inc., No. 05-0249 (Tex. Mar. 2, 2007)(per curiam) (void judgment, defective service,
lack of authority to order sale, enforcement of judgment)
Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank NA, No. 08-0444 (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(Green)
(whether a correction deed may convey two properties when an unambiguous deed mistakenly conveyed
only one, correction deed found void, court renders judgment and orders rescission of the mistaken deed)
MYRAD PROPERTIES, INC. v. LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITES, INC., COMMERICIAL
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1997-C1, ROBIN GREEN, AND MELISSA COBB;
from Bell County; 3rd district (03-07-00240-CV, 252 SW3d 605, 03-28-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
In re Poly-America, LP, No. 04-1049,262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(O'Neill)
(arbitration in employment context, FAA, retaliatory discharge, employment law, limitation of remedies,
unconscionability argument challenge sustained, offending provision stricken, but remainder given effect)
We hold invalid, as substantively unconscionable and void, provisions of the parties’ contract that prohibit the
award of punitive damages or reinstatement and thus inhibit effective vindication of Luna’s retaliatory-
discharge claim in an arbitral forum. We further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
the arbitrator to determine whether the fee-splitting agreement and discovery limitations — as applied in the
course of arbitration — are unconscionable. Because we find the invalid remedies-limitation provisions
severable from the agreement to arbitrate, which we conclude is otherwise enforceable, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in compelling arbitration. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams |
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |