Marquez AD, LLC sued Jarrod Adreon in Hays County in May 2021 for breach of contract and related claims over landscaping services at Adreon's residence. After a trial the week of August 14, 2023, the court set an October 16, 2023 hearing on attorney's fees; Marquez filed a fee motion and proposed judgment on October 9, 2023, and Adreon filed nothing. On November 20, 2023 the trial court signed a final judgment in the form Marquez proposed, which states that it "finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable" and awards $81,977.19 in attorney's fees. Adreon did not appeal, and plenary power expired December 20, 2023.¹

On July 8, 2024, nearly eight months after the judgment, Adreon moved to reform or correct it. Over Marquez's objection that the court no longer had plenary power, the trial court (453rd District Court, Judge Joe Pool) held a hearing on September 3, 2024 and signed an order removing the fee award, which the brief says reduced the fees from $81,977.19 to $2,076.¹ Marquez petitioned the Third Court of Appeals for mandamus on November 25, 2024; a panel of Chief Justice Byrne and Justices Triana and Kelly denied relief on December 12, 2024, and en banc rehearing was denied on January 17, 2025 without explanation.² Marquez filed this petition in the Supreme Court on February 26, 2025. Adreon's response was struck, and the Court requested briefs on the merits on September 26, 2025; Marquez filed its brief on October 13, 2025.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court after the Third Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief from a Hays County trial court order reforming a final judgment. The Court has requested briefs on the merits but has not yet granted or denied the petition.

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion because it lacked jurisdiction to modify a final judgment eight months after it was rendered, when Adreon did not appeal. 2. Whether, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to substantively modify the final judgment by changing the fee award from $81,977.19 to $2,076, and the court of appeals denied mandamus, relief from this Court is the last resort to preserve the rule of finality of judgments.¹

Relator (Marquez AD, LLC): An order entered without jurisdiction is void, so mandamus lies without a showing that appeal is inadequate, citing In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. and In re Daredia, which held a trial court clearly abuses its discretion by setting aside a judgment after plenary power expires. A judgment after a trial on the merits is presumed final and appealable, and a judgment with finality language is final, so any change must be made while the court has plenary power or by timely appeal. The modification was judicial, not clerical, because it deleted a substantive fee award, so the order of reform is void; relator discusses Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, In re Elizondo and In re Daredia on this point. Because the court of appeals denied mandamus without explanation, relator says this Court's mandamus relief is the last chance to preserve the finality rule, citing In re Southwestern Bell, In re Dickason and In re Brookshire Grocery Co..¹

Real Party in Interest (Jarrod Adreon): No response is currently on file. Adreon's response filed July 8, 2025 was struck, the clerk's office asked his counsel several times to resubmit it, and no merits brief from him appears on the docket as of this writing, so his arguments are not summarized here.

Marquez says the case matters because it protects the finality of judgments, prevents never-ending litigation, and keeps trial courts from acting without jurisdiction, and that other trial courts are making the same mistake. It cites Hsin-Chi-Su v. Vantage Drilling Co., 474 S.W.3d 284 (Tex. App.⁠—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), where the majority allowed an order entered without jurisdiction to stand, creating what it calls split authority, and says the issue is likely to recur.¹

None