On April 8, 2016, Samuel Nnamdi Chionuma and Chidi Charles Onye-Eze signed a partnership agreement as the two shareholders of Kingsview Cafe, a closely held corporation, Chionuma holding 49% and Onye-Eze 51%. Chionuma gave notice of termination on October 3, 2016, and alleges Onye-Eze did not take the required steps for the terminated interest and kept operating the business.¹ Chionuma sued Onye-Eze in Harris County on January 20, 2017 and later amended to add Henry Chukwuneke, alleging among other things a fraudulent transfer of Chionuma's interest and seeking declaratory relief. Chionuma says Chukwuneke was personally served on December 12, 2017 but did not answer because his lawyer advised him he was only a witness; Chionuma alleges Onye-Eze sold Kingsview to Chukwuneke and Thomas Omeh during the lawsuit.²

At a bench trial on August 20, 2019 at which only Chionuma appeared, the court rendered a default judgment that, according to the petitioners, taxed all monetary relief (damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs, and a future enforcement fee) "only as against" Onye-Eze and named Chukwuneke only in its declaratory and injunctive parts. On August 21, 2020, after plenary power expired, the trial court signed a "Declaratory Judgment & Final Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc" imposing an $18,397.61 attorney's fee award, all court costs and a $5,000 future enforcement fee jointly and severally against Chukwuneke; Chionuma's trial counsel acknowledged at the bill-of-review hearing that he asked for the nunc pro tunc to "correct" the original judgment.¹ Chukwuneke, Kingsview, and Omeh brought a bill of review in the 434th District Court of Fort Bend County (Judge Argie Brame), which denied relief.² The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the petitioners failed the third Craddock element because their non-appearance rested on counsel's advice, and that they failed to prove the nunc pro tunc void because they introduced only a partial copy of the original judgment and did not separately request judicial notice. Chukwuneke v. Chionuma, No. 14-23-00842-CV (Tex. App.⁠—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 21, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op.).³ The petition was filed December 2, 2025 and the Court requested merits briefing on June 12, 2026; petitioners filed July 14, respondent August 3 and petitioners replied August 18, 2026 (Docket).

Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed the denial of a bill of review that collaterally attacked a default judgment and a later judgment nunc pro tunc. The Court requested and received full merits briefing, including a reply, but has not yet granted the petition.

1. Whether a trial court has jurisdiction, after its plenary power has expired, to impose new joint-and-several monetary liability on a defendant through a judgment nunc pro tunc, when the original judgment imposed no monetary obligation against that defendant and the record shows no prior rendition of such liability. 2. Whether a party mounting a collateral attack on a void judgment must produce additional trial-court evidence of voidness beyond the face of the challenged judgments when both judgments are undisputed parts of the record.¹ Chionuma restates the issues as whether petitioners showed that the record affirmatively and conclusively shows on its face that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the nunc pro tunc, and whether the court of appeals erred in holding they failed to meet their burden of proof that it is void.²

Petitioners (Henry Chukwuneke, Kingsview Cafe, and Thomas Omeh): Under Escobar v. Escobar and Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell, a nunc pro tunc may correct only clerical errors, not judicial ones, after plenary power expires. The 2020 judgment imposed for the first time monetary liability on Chukwuneke that the original judgment did not, so it is void to that extent; Chionuma never carried his burden to show clerical error by clear and convincing evidence, and his counsel's admission that he sought to "correct" the judgment shows a substantive change. Because a collateral attack on a void judgment requires no evidence beyond the face of the judgments, and both judgments were part of the record, the court of appeals applied the wrong burden. Allowing it would let any litigant add a debtor to a fee award months or years later under the "nunc pro tunc" label and make the 30-day plenary-power limit meaningless. They ask the Court to render judgment that the nunc pro tunc is void as to the monetary relief against Chukwuneke.¹

Respondent (Samuel Nnamdi Chionuma): The nunc pro tunc is presumed valid, and petitioners' collateral attack fails because they did not prove the record affirmatively and conclusively shows on its face that the court lacked jurisdiction; nothing in the record shows the court rendered a judgment inconsistent with the nunc pro tunc. The court of appeals was not required to apply a clear-and-convincing standard, which would improperly look into the merits. Petitioners' only other avenue would be a direct attack, by complaining the trial court erred in denying the bill of review, but they did not argue that on the merits in this Court. At the petition stage he also argued that Chukwuneke was properly served and ignored the suit on his lawyer's advice, that Kingsview lacks a then-existing interest, and that Omeh failed to show a meritorious defense.²

Petitioners argue the case presents an important question about the scope of a trial court's authority to render a judgment nunc pro tunc after plenary power expires and the limits on imposing new monetary liability through that device, and that the decision conflicts with Escobar and Comet Aluminum; review would preserve uniformity on the finality of judgments.¹ Chionuma responds that the matter presents no question important to the state's jurisprudence and does not conflict with Morris v. O'Neal or Caldwell v. Barnes.²

None