O =
P I N I O=20
N
After =
Patricia and=20
Charles T. Phillips's divorce decree was signed, Patricia retained =
a new=20
attorney to file a motion for new trial. The trial court struck =
the motion=20
for new trial after hearing Patricia's trial attorney's Rule 12 =
motion to=20
show authority, challenging the new attorney's authority to =
represent=20
Patricia. In one point of error, Patricia argues that the trial =
court=20
erred in striking her motion for new trial. We agree, reverse the =
trial=20
court's grant of the Rule 12 motion, and remand for a hearing on =
the=20
motion for new trial.
Background
On=20
December 13, 2005, Patricia and Charles's uncontested divorce was =
granted,=20
and their property division was approved, judgment to be entered =
on=20
January 9, 2006. However, several changes were made to the decree, =
which=20
was not signed until February 16, 2006. Patricia twice told her =
trial=20
counsel, Bruce Mauzy, to file a motion for new trial or notice of =
appeal.=20
He refused and told her that she would have to hire another =
attorney to=20
file her requests and have the new attorney send him a motion to=20
substitute counsel. Patricia retained Charles A. Hood, who timely =
filed=20
her motion for new trial and set it for hearing on April 12, 2006. =
Mauzy=20
was served with a subpoena duces tecum the day before the hearing=20
requesting that he turnover Patricia's file.
On the day=20
of hearing on Patricia's motion for new trial, Mauzy filed a =
motion to=20
show authority under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and a motion =
to=20
quash the subpoena duces tecum. In the Rule 12 motion, Mauzy =
argued that=20
Hood lacked authority to file the motion for new trial because =
Mauzy was=20
still Patricia's attorney when the motion for new trial was filed, =
and=20
Hood was thus interfering with their attorney/client relationship. =
The=20
trial court found that Hood lacked authority and struck Patricia's =
motion=20
for new trial. Hood responded the same day with a motion to =
substitute=20
counsel and an amended motion for new trial, neither of which was =
ruled on=20
by the trial court. He also later filed a motion to reconsider, =
which the=20
trial court denied after a hearing. Patricia now appeals. =
Summary=20
of Argument
In her sole=20
issue, Patricia argues that the trial court erred in striking her =
motion=20
for new trial. She asserts that, because Mauzy no longer =
represented her=20
at the time Hood filed the motion for new trial, the motion should =
have=20
been heard, not stricken. In support, Patricia contends that: (1) =
because=20
only a party may challenge an attorney's authority =
through a Rule=20
12 motion, Mauzy lacked standing to challenge Hood's authority; =
(2) it was=20
error for the trial court to hear Mauzy's motion to show authority =
on the=20
same day it was filed; (3) a client can discharge her attorney and =
hire=20
new counsel at anytime, for any reason, and, once discharged, the =
former=20
attorney must withdraw; (4) a motion to substitute counsel was=20
unnecessary; and (5) she was harmed by being denied the counsel of =
her=20
choice.
Standard of=20
Review
We=20
review a trial court's striking =
of a motion=20
for new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Air Park-Dallas =
Zoning=20
Comm. v. Crow-Billingsley Airpark, Ltd., 109 S.W.3d 900, 908 =
(Tex.=20
App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.). A trial =
court abuses its discretion =
if it=20
acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to =
guiding=20
rules or principles. CHCA Mainland, L.P. v. Burkhalter, =
227=20
S.W.3d 221, 226 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). =
When=20
reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, we =
may not substitute =
our own=20
judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
Standing
Patricia=20
argues that, because Rule 12 states that "[a] party in a suit or=20
proceeding" may bring a motion to show authority, Mauzy, a =
non-party,=20
lacked standing to bring such a motion. Tex. R. =
Civ. P. 12.=20
Because=20
standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, we review =
a trial=20
court's determination of standing de novo. Hairgrove v. City =
of=20
Pasadena, 80 S.W.3d 703, 705 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] =
2002,=20
pet. denied). An order =
is void,=20
among other things, if the trial court lacks subject-matter =
jurisdiction=20
to render it. Hong Kong Dev., Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d =
415, 439=20
(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
We are also=20
called upon to interpret =
the=20
meaning of "party" in Rule 12. "[R]ule=20
interpretation is 'a pure question of law over which the judge has =
no=20
discretion.'" Bradt v. Sebek, 14 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex.=20
App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (quoting=20
Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 437 =
(Tex.=20
1997)).=20
Thus, we also review rule interpretation de novo. BASF =
Fina=20
Petrochemicals Ltd. P'ship v. H.B. Zachry Co., 168 S.W.3d =
867, 871=20
(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). =
When a =
rule of=20
procedure is clear, unambiguous, and specific, we construe its =
language=20
according to its literal meaning. Bradt, 14 S.W.3d at=20
762.
Rule 12 has=20
long been the exclusive method for questioning the authority of an =
attorney to bring a suit. Angelina County v. McFarland, =
374=20
S.W.2d 417, 423 (Tex. 1964). At its =
roots, Rule=20
12 (originally Article 320 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes) =
was=20
created to protect defendants by giving them a means for =
determining=20
whether a plaintiff had authorized an attorney to act. =
Id.=20
Until 1981, a Rule 12 motion was limited to a defendant=20
challenging a plaintiff's attorney's authority to prosecute a =
suit;=20
afterward, Rule 12 was changed to also allow a plaintiff to =
challenge=20
another party's attorney's authority. =
See =
Gulf Reg'l=20
Educ. Television Affiliates v. Univ. of Houston, 746 S.W.2d =
803, 810=20
(Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied). =
In the=20
present case, Mauzy, Patricia's original trial counsel, filed a =
Rule 12=20
motion contesting Hood's authority to represent Patricia in a =
motion for=20
new trial. Rule 12 does not address whether a motion can be filed =
by a=20
non-party attorney. Therefore, we must strictly adhere to the =
Rule's=20
language, which plainly grants a party standing to =
challenge an=20
attorney's authority. See =
Bradt,=20
14 S.W.3d at 762.
Charles=20
claims that, because he "urged the trial court to grant" Mauzy's =
Rule 12=20
motion during the hearings on the Rule 12 motion and the motion to =
reconsider, the "party" requirement of Rule 12 was met. =
Regardless, Mauzy=20
filed the Rule 12 motion on his own accord--Charles was not =
represented by=20
Mauzy, and he did not prompt Mauzy to bring this motion. The =
motion=20
challenging Hood's authority was not brought by or on behalf of =
any=20
party.
Thus,=20
because Mauzy lacked standing to file the Rule 12 motion, the =
trial=20
court's order ruling on the merits and finding that Hood lacked =
authority=20
is void. See =
Hong Kong=20
Dev., 229 S.W.3d at 439. The trial =
court=20
struck Patricia's motion for new trial after erroneously hearing =
the Rule=20
12 motion and determining that Hood lacked authority to represent=20
Patricia. As a result, the trial court abused its discretion in =
striking=20
the motion for new trial. Because this holding is dispositive of=20
Patricia's appeal, we need not address the merits of her other=20
arguments.
Conclusion
We reverse=20
the trial court's striking of the motion for new trial and remand =
to the=20
trial court for a hearing on the motion for new =
trial.
George C.=20
Hanks, Jr.
Justice
Panel=20
consists of Justices Taft, Hanks, and Higley.