“[W]e adopt the following two-step inquiry for determining when requests for findings and conclusions that are not required by the rules will trigger the extended ninety-day filing deadline. First, was the non-jury proceeding a type in which the trial court could consider evidence? Second, if so, was there evidence before the court? When the answer to both questions is yes and a party requests findings and conclusions, all parties benefit from the extended appellate timetable.

The first question is categorical, not case-specific. For example, it will be answered yes for a judgment following a bench trial, a default judgment on a claim for unliquidated damages, a judgment rendered as sanctions, and any other judgment that could be based in any part on an evidentiary hearing.

The second question is case-specific and focuses on whether evidence was presented to the trial court, not whether that evidence proved to be necessary in hindsight. In answering this question, it is not relevant whether the evidence presented was disputed, or jurisdictional, or material to an issue later raised on appeal.” Phillips v. McNeil, No. 19-0831 (Dec. 3, 2021) (citations omitted, emphasis added) (applying IKB Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) and Gene Duke Builders, Inc. v. Abilene Housing Auth., 138 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam)).

This is a cross-post from 600Camp, which follows commercial cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In Texas practice, “a judgment is final either if ‘it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.’” Bella Palma LLC v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2021) (emphasis in original, quoting Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

In federal practice, however, “[w]ithout a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 54(b) order, ‘any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties.’” Guideone Ins. Co. v. First United Methodist Church of Hereford, No. 20-10528 (Feb. 22, 2021, unpublished) (emphasis in original, quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54).

The trial court’s judgment concluded: “All relief not granted herein is denied. This is a final judgment.” It later issued a supplemental order confirming that it meant this judgment to be final.

The court of appeals saw things differently: “After examining the record, the court of appeals concluded the November 2016 summary judgment was interlocutory, not final, because claims against Timothy were not properly addressed. The court of appeals therefore dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.” (citations omitted).

The supreme court reversed: “We have previously held that a judgment is final either if “’it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.’The court of appeals mistakenly read Lehmann to require record evidence of finality and an unequivocal expression of finality. But this approach ‘would distill Lehmann’s joint tests into a simple rule: when there has not been
a conventional trial on the merits, a court must look to the record to determine whether the
judgment is final. That is not Lehmann’s rule.’” (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

Bella Palma LLC v. Young, No. 19-0204 (April 17, 2020) (per curiam).

The “Lehmann problem” – the question of when a judgment is truly final (and thus starts the appeal deadline) is a perennial challenge in Texas cases involving multiple parties and issues. The problem has drawn particular attention recently in recent months in family-law cases, where judges often prepare a letter or memo summarizing key rulings. Reversing a Dallas case that found such an instrument to be a final judgment, the Texas Supreme Court held: “[A]n order lacking the unmistakable language of finality—that it resolves all claims between and among all parties and is final and appealable—is ambiguous in a suit under the Family Code when the order does not comport with the statute governing final orders and is otherwise inconclusive as to its intent. If a judicial decree’s finality is ambiguous, a reviewing court should examine the record to determine the trial court’s intent.” In the Interest of R.R.K., No. 18-0273 (Dec. 13, 2019). The opinion also reviews the general contours of the test for judgment finality in Texas.