CROSSOVER: Mandamus Win for Family-Law Litigants: Oral/Docket ‘New Trial’ Doesn’t Extend Plenary Power—Late Signed New-Trial Order Is Void

In re West Fork Group, LLC, 14-26-00143-CV, March 24, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Galveston County, Texas

Synopsis

A trial court cannot extend plenary power with an oral pronouncement or a docket entry “granting” a new trial—Rule 329b requires a signed written order. When the written new-trial order was signed after the motion had been overruled by operation of law and the 105-day plenary-power deadline had expired, the order was void. The Fourteenth Court granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate the late new-trial order and every subsequent order, including a later purported final judgment.

Relevance to Family Law

Family-law litigators routinely operate in high-velocity post-judgment practice—new-trial motions after divorce decrees, enforcement judgments, attorney-fee sanctions, or property-division rulings. This opinion is a clean, mandamus-ready reminder that oral rulings and docket notations do not stop Rule 329b’s jurisdictional clock: if the signed order doesn’t exist by the deadline, plenary power expires and anything signed afterward is void. In custody and property disputes, that can mean immediate leverage to unwind post-deadline “do-overs,” prevent re-litigation, and halt trial-court proceedings that are jurisdictionally dead.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

West Fork obtained a final summary judgment on December 11, 2023, including express finality language disposing of all claims and parties. The opposing party timely filed a motion for new trial. At a February 19, 2024 hearing—within the 75-day window—the trial court orally stated it was granting a new trial, and the clerk’s docket sheet reflected the same.

But the court did not sign a written order granting the motion within the Rule 329b deadlines. The motion was therefore overruled by operation of law at day 75 after judgment, and the trial court’s plenary power continued only for 30 additional days (the 105-day outside deadline). The trial court nevertheless signed a written order granting a new trial on May 15, 2024—well after plenary power expired—and later signed additional orders, including a purported final judgment on February 18, 2025. West Fork sought mandamus to vacate the void post-plenary orders.

Issues Decided

• Whether an oral pronouncement and docket entry “granting” a new trial constitute a grant of a new trial for purposes of Rule 329b.
• Whether the trial court retained plenary power to sign a written order granting a new trial after the motion was overruled by operation of law and the 105-day plenary-power period expired.
• Whether mandamus relief is available to vacate orders signed after plenary power expired (i.e., void orders), including subsequent orders and a later purported final judgment.

Rules Applied

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (d), (e):
  • The trial court has plenary power for 30 days after signing the judgment.
  • A timely motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law if not ruled on by signed written order within 75 days.
  • If overruled by operation of law, plenary power extends only to 105 days after the judgment is signed (75 + 30).
• Signed written order requirement:
  • In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (new trial may be granted only by signed written order).
  • Faulkner v. Culver, 851 S.W.2d 187 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) (oral pronouncement and docket entry cannot substitute for written order).
  • Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., Inc. v. Fischer, 111 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam) (declines to accept docket entry in lieu of written order; adheres to Rule 329b framework).
• Void orders and mandamus:
  • In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (signing after plenary power expires is an abuse of discretion; void order; no adequate-remedy-by-appeal showing required).
  • In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (void orders have no effect).
• Finality:
  • Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality principles; “unmistakable clarity” language).

Application

The Fourteenth Court treated the case as a straight Rule 329b jurisdictional problem, not an equities problem. The December 11, 2023 judgment was final under Lehmann. The motion for new trial was timely, but Rule 329b(c) required the trial court to sign a written order granting the motion within 75 days; otherwise, the motion is overruled by operation of law.

The relator conceded (and the record reflected) that the trial court orally announced a grant at the February hearing and the docket entry mirrored that announcement. But the court held those actions were legally insufficient to constitute a “grant” of a new trial. Under Barber, Faulkner, and Horizon/CMS, the only legally operative act is a signed written order.

Because no signed order existed by the 75-day deadline, the motion was overruled by operation of law. The trial court’s plenary power therefore extended only to day 105 after judgment. When the court eventually signed the written new-trial order on May 15, 2024, it was outside the 105-day period (the court identified March 25, 2024 as the expiration date). That timing defect deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to grant a new trial; the order was void, and every later order built on that void order was likewise void. Mandamus was the correct procedural vehicle because void orders are reviewable by mandamus without the usual “no adequate remedy by appeal” showing.

Holding

The court held that the trial court’s oral pronouncement and docket entry did not grant a new trial; a new trial can be granted only by a signed written order. Because the motion for new trial was not granted by signed written order within Rule 329b’s deadlines, it was overruled by operation of law and plenary power expired at 105 days after the original judgment was signed.

The court further held that the written order granting a new trial—signed after plenary power expired—was void, as were all subsequent orders entered after that void act, including a later purported final judgment. The court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate the late new-trial order and all subsequent orders.

Practical Application

Texas family-law cases are uniquely vulnerable to post-judgment procedural drift: judges announce rulings from the bench, coordinators “set it for signing later,” and docket sheets get treated as if they are orders. West Fork is a reminder that none of that matters for Rule 329b.

Use this opinion in at least three recurring family-law scenarios:

• Divorce decree / property division: When a judge orally “grants new trial” on a property issue but the written order arrives late, the original decree may remain the operative final judgment—and the later “new trial” proceedings may be void. This can be outcome-determinative for enforcement, supersedeas strategies, and appellate deadlines.
• SAPCR modifications and conservatorship disputes: Post-judgment new-trial practice can become a tactical reset button. West Fork limits that reset to what Rule 329b allows—and gives you a mandamus path to stop a court from proceeding on a void grant.
• Sanctions and fee awards: If a sanctions order is final and a new-trial motion is “granted” only orally (or via docket notation), you can press a jurisdictional objection early and preserve mandamus leverage if the court later signs outside plenary power.

Strategically, the decision is also a reminder that the prevailing party must police deadlines. If you want the court to grant a new trial (or avoid operation-of-law denial), get the signed order entered well before day 75—because day 105 is the cliff, and the trial court cannot “fix it later.”

Checklists

Plenary-Power Deadline Control (Rule 329b)

• Calendar the judgment-signing date (Day 0) the same day it is signed.
• Calendar Day 30 (default plenary-power expiration absent post-judgment motions).
• If a motion for new trial is timely filed, calendar:
• Day 75 (operation-of-law overruling date if no signed order).
• Day 105 (absolute plenary-power deadline if overruled by operation of law).
• Confirm whether any other timely post-judgment motions exist that affect the timetable (e.g., motion to modify, correct, or reform).
• Do not rely on coordinator notes, bench rulings, or docket entries for jurisdictional deadlines.

If You Need the New-Trial Grant to Stick

• Prepare a proposed written order granting new trial and deliver it to the court promptly.
• Set a “sign-by” internal deadline well ahead of Day 75.
• Obtain a file-stamped, signed copy (or e-filed signed order) and verify it is entered on the clerk’s record.
• If the judge makes an oral pronouncement, immediately request signing the written order on the record and follow up in writing the same day.
• If nearing Day 75, elevate: request an emergency signing conference or submission; create a paper trail showing diligence.

If the Other Side Is Trying to Revive a Dead Judgment

• Pull the clerk’s record and confirm the date of the final judgment and any signed post-judgment orders.
• Identify whether the new-trial motion was overruled by operation of law (no signed order by Day 75).
• Calculate the Day 105 plenary-power expiration and compare it to the signature date of any purported new-trial order.
• Object in the trial court that plenary power has expired and the order is void.
• Prepare a mandamus petition promptly if the court proceeds or signs additional orders.

Mandamus Packaging for a Void Post-Plenary Order

• Include the final judgment, the motion for new trial, and the docket sheet entries in the mandamus record.
• Include the late-signed order granting new trial and every subsequent order you want vacated.
• Provide a clear Rule 329b timeline chart (judgment date → Day 75 → Day 105 → signature date).
• Cite In re Barber, Faulkner, Horizon/CMS, and In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. for the signed-order rule and void-order mandamus pathway.
• Request relief that expressly vacates the late order and all subsequent orders that depend on it.

Citation

In re West Fork Group, LLC, No. 14-26-00143-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 24, 2026) (mem. op.) (orig. proceeding).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

In a Texas divorce or custody case, West Fork is a procedural lever when the other side (or the court) tries to reopen a final order after the jurisdictional window has closed. If the judge orally grants a new trial on the record—common in emotionally charged post-decree hearings—and the signed order doesn’t land before the Rule 329b deadlines, you can characterize everything that follows as void: the “new trial,” any interim rulings, discovery orders, and even a later “new” final order. That framing is not merely defensive; it can be offensive. A mandamus petition built on a clean Day 75/Day 105 timeline can freeze the opponent’s momentum, restore the original judgment as the operative final order, and force the case back into an appellate posture where deadlines and jurisdiction—rather than courtroom improvisation—control the outcome.

~~3a3c1e2b-d7fd-467d-8422-f6771c8bdfb9~~