Garza v. Garcia – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Garza v. Garcia, 137 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. 2004), the Texas Supreme Court explained that a motion for new trial that is filed without a filing fee is deemed to have been conditionally filed. Id. at 37.

A conditionally filed motion for new trial will reset appellate timetables in the same manner as a fully consummated motion for new trial. Id. at 38.

However, the Court also noted that unless the filing fee is timely paid, i.e. furnished within 30 days of judgment, the trial court may review the complaints contained in the motion for new trial, but is not required to do so. Id.

The Court further noted that because the appellee had never paid the filing fee, her factual sufficiency claims were never properly before the trial court and presented nothing for appellate review. Id.

The Texas Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's order granting a motion to transfer venue.

The trial court did not specify in the order the reason or reasons why it granted the motion; it simply stated "'after considering the motion, the pleadings, the affidavits, the responses . . . arguments . . . and hearing, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue.'" Id. at 38.

The supreme court held that an appellate court must affirm any such order because of the presumption that a venue order is granted on convenience grounds. Id. at 40.