Brantley pringle fort worth

Our holding is in accord with the federal law. United States v. Broadhead, U. The Sheriff has pointed out that in that case what was involved was pre-judgment interest as damages, not postjudgment statutory interest.

See also 8 Am. The Sheriff has advanced the contention that the action for injunction was in the wrong court. This contention is without merit because interest only could have been involved, the total amount of the bond having been paid; and even if the judgment had provided for accrual of interest it did not it would have been a void judgment in such respect. A void judgment can be attacked in any court.

Having held that judgment was correct and therefore to be affirmed for the reason stated all the complaints by remaining points of error are overruled as moot and immaterial for purposes of the appeal.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Home Browse Decisions S. Any use of content downloaded or printed from this site is limited to non-commercial personal or educational use, including fair use as directed by U.

For more information or for reproduction requests, please contact Special Collections at The University of Texas at Arlington Libraries. Attribution-NonCommercial 4. Rights: Any use of content downloaded or printed from this site is limited to non-commercial personal or educational use, including fair use as directed by U.

License: Attribution-NonCommercial 4. Skip to main content. Download Tweet Facebook. Accessed October 25, Helen filed a motion to modify both the interest rate and the interest calculation in the judgment, which was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed. In her first issue, Helen contends that the trial court erred in applying the wrong prejudgment interest rate to the damages award.

Helen argues that the correct prejudgment interest rate was the greater of five percent or the prime interest rate in effect when the final judgment was signed. Moon contends that the final judgment was signed July 7, , that the October 30 judgment was merely a judgment nunc pro tunc, and that the trial court properly determined that the applicable interest rate is ten percent.

The prejudgment interest rate is controlled by statute. See Tex. Code Ann. Because statutory construction is a question of law, we review the trial court s decision de novo. Dep t of Transp. Needham, 82 S. Stafford Estates, L. Fort Worth , no pet. Under a de novo standard of review, the reviewing court exercises its own judgment and redetermines each legal issue.

Subaru of Am. David McDavid Nissan Inc. City of Austin, 7 S. A judgment in a personal injury case earns prejudgment interest. The prejudgment interest rate is equal to the postjudgment rate applicable at the time of judgment. During the regular legislative session, the legislature passed House Bills 4 and , both of which contained nearly identical amendments to the finance code that effectively reduced the postjudgment interest rate from ten to five percent.

Laws , ; Tex. Laws , Because House Bill 4 went into effect on September 1, , H. Laws , , its prejudgment interest rate applies in any case in which a final judgment was signed or subject to appeal on or after September 1, Union Pac.

Texarkana , no pet. Bush, S. The final judgment in this case was signed October 30, Moon s argument that the October 30 judgment was nunc pro tunc and therefore related back to the July 7 judgment is not supported by the record. The trial court expressly vacated the July 7 judgment in its order granting Pringle s motion to modify and at a later hearing twice acknowledged setting aside that judgment.

A judgment that has been vacated has no legal effect. Shelby Operating Co. City of Waskom, S. Texarkana , pet. When a judgment has been rendered and later set aside or vacated, the matter stands precisely as if there had been no judgment. Ferguson v. Naylor, S.