Greater Helotes Little League v. Frederick Kempf and Lewis Urbany--Appeal from 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00242-CV
GREATER HELOTES LITTLE LEAGUE,
Appellant
v.
Frederick KEMPF and Lewis Urbany,
Appellees
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-CI-14961
Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2007

 

AFFIRMED

Greater Helotes Little League ("GHLL") complains the trial court erred in signing a final judgment after GHLL filed a notice of intent to nonsuit their claims against Frederick Kempf and Lewis Urbany. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Background

This suit arose from a dispute over real estate. On February 28, 2005, the parties reached a settlement agreement and dictated their settlement agreement into the record. After ascertaining that the parties intended to be bound by the agreement, the court stated, "Then I will approve the settlement that y'all have entered into, and I will pronounce and render judgment on the settlement making it final today." The trial court's final written judgment, signed one month later, however, did not strictly conform to the terms of the agreement approved by the court on February 28, 2005. GHLL then appealed and this court reversed the March 28, 2005 judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to sign a judgment that strictly conformed to the agreed judgment rendered on February 28, 2005. See Greater Helotes Little League v. Kempf, No. 04-05-00360-CV, 2006 WL 1232935, at *2 (Tex. App.--San Antonio May 10, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Subsequently, and one day before the hearing on the motion to enter final judgment, GHLL filed a notice of nonsuit. At the hearing, the trial court considered arguments from both parties before entering a new written final judgment. GHLL now appeals the judgment signed on February 5, 2007.

Discussion

A party may take a nonsuit, "at any time before the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence[;]" however, the plaintiff's right to nonsuit "shall not prejudice the right of an adverse party to be heard on a pending claim for affirmative relief . . . ." Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. GHLL argues that it has a right to take a nonsuit because there was never a trial on the merits, the case was settled prior to voir dire, and no presentation of evidence was made. GHLL further contends that this court's May 10, 2006 judgment reversed the trial court's written judgment, thereby "return[ing] the parties to the posture they were in on the day of the settlement agreement." We disagree. "When a prior judicial determination is evidenced, but the signed judgment inaccurately reflects the true decision of the court, the error is clerical and may be corrected" "after a judgment has become final." Greater Helotes Little League, 2006 WL 1232935, at *2 (quoting Andrews v. Koch, 702 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tex. 1986)). Here, a final judgment was orally rendered by the trial court on February 28, 2005. "The oral judgment was 'effective immediately, and the signing and entry of the judgment [were] only ministerial acts.'" Greater Helotes Little League, 2006 WL 1232935, at *1 (quoting Wittau v. Storie, 145 S.W.3d 732, 735 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (citing Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex. 1969)). As such, the only action the trial court was authorized to undertake upon remand was to enter a corrected judgment. See Gray v. Turner, 807 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1991, no writ) (citing Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 231-32 (Tex. 1986) ("Once a judgment becomes final, the trial court's power to alter the judgment is limited to correcting errors made upon the entry of a judgment previously rendered."). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in entering a final judgment that strictly conformed to the agreed judgment rendered on February 28, 2005.

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice