SAIED SHENOF v. PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (2026)

OPINION

Appellee PNC Bank, National Association, sued Saied Shenof to recover on a credit card debt. In January 2024, the trial court signed a final judgment in PNC Bank's favor after Shenof defaulted by failing to appear at trial. Shenof filed a timely motion for new trial. Following a second trial, the court signed a second judgment in PNC Bank's favor after Shenof again failed to appear. Shenof appeals from the trial court's implicit denial of his second motion for new trial.

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Shenof's notice of appeal was untimely. The trial court did not sign a written order determining Shenof's first motion for new trial within seventy-five days of the first judgment. Accordingly, that motion was not granted but was overruled by operation of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). Shenof's notice of appeal was due ninety days after the first judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Because Shenof did not file a notice of appeal until January 2025, we lack jurisdiction over Shenof's appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

Background

Appellee PNC Bank sued Shenof for breach of contract. Shenof answered. The trial court signed a final judgment on January 25, 2024, finding that Shenof failed to appear for trial and awarding judgment in PNC Bank's favor, including damages, interest, and costs. Shenof filed a timely motion for new trial, alleging that he did not receive notice of the trial setting. The trial court signed a document entitled “Order on Motion for New Trial,” within the court's plenary power. We include the signed document below:

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

Subsequently, the parties and the trial court proceeded as if a new trial had been granted. In July 2024, Shenof filed a motion to dismiss PNC Bank's case, which the trial court denied. On October 11, 2024, the court signed another judgment in PNC Bank's favor, which stated that the court heard the cause at a bench trial and that Shenof again failed to appear. Shenof filed a motion for new trial. The court signed an amended judgment on December 30, 2024, and Shenof filed his notice of appeal on January 10, 2025.

In this court, Shenof appeals “all of the judgements in [the trial] court.” For the reasons explained below, we lack jurisdiction over Shenof's attempted appeal.

Trial Court's Jurisdiction

Timely filed motions for new trial may not languish indefinitely. They must be “determined” by written order signed within seventy-five days after the judgment was signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). To determine a motion for new trial, “the trial court must sign a written order that explicitly rules on the motion.” Rivera v. Shafaii Invs., Ltd., 727 S.W.3d 501, 504 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, pet. denied) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c); In re Lovito-Nelson, 278 S.W.3d 773, 776 (Tex. 2009) (concluding that “a motion for new trial is not granted without a signed, written order explicitly granting the motion”)). “In this context ‘explicitly’ means ‘expressed without ambiguity or vagueness.’ ” Id. (quoting Explicit, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “explicit” as “[e]xpressed without ambiguity or vagueness”)); see also New Oxford Am. Dictionary 610 (Angus Stevenson & Christine Lindberg, eds., 3d ed. 2010) (defining “explicit” as “stated clearly and in detail”). When a timely motion for new trial is not determined by written order signed within seventy-five days of the judgment, it is considered overruled by operation of law on the seventy-fifth day. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c).

Here, the March 27, 2024 order pictured above did not explicitly grant or deny the motion. Although the form order presented to the trial court contained blanks for the court to indicate whether the motion was granted or denied, the court placed no mark indicating whether it granted or denied the motion. Therefore, the court did not “determine” Shenof's motion for new trial after the January 25, 2024 judgment. Because the trial court did not rule on the motion for new trial by written order signed on or before April 9, 2024, the motion was overruled by operation of law on that date. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (timely filing of a motion for new trial extends the trial court's plenary power for seventy-five days, at which point the motion is overruled by operation of law if there has been no ruling on the motion). The trial court's plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, or correct the January 25, 2024 judgment expired on May 9, 2024, thirty days after the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e). Our record contains no other order explicitly granting a new trial on or before May 9, 2024.

Any judicial action taken after the expiration of the court's plenary power is a nullity, and any orders signed outside the court's plenary jurisdiction are void. See B.Z.B., Inc. v. Clark, 273 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (order signed by trial court outside plenary power is void).

Appellate Jurisdiction

The trial court signed the October 11, 2024 “judgment” and December 30, 2024 amended “judgment” outside of plenary jurisdiction, and those “judgments” are thus void. We have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from a void order. See Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (“[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that determination.”). When a party appeals a void order, we must declare the order void and vacate the order. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). We accordingly declare the October 11, 2024 “judgment” and December 30, 2024 amended “judgment” void and vacate those orders.

This leaves us with the earlier judgment. Because Shenof timely filed his motion for new trial after the January 25, 2024 judgment, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from that judgment was extended to April 24, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Shenof did not file his notice of appeal until January 10, 2025, making it untimely. Therefore, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the January 25, 2024 judgment. See Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Tran, 672 S.W.3d 806, 811 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).

Conclusion

We dismiss Shenof's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Kevin Jewell Justice