¶1concurring.
¶2I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s analysis of the issue concerning the late-filed findings of fact and conclusions of law signed by the trial court. The majority criticizes several cases, one of which is from this Court, that hold that a trial court need not have plenary power to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See In re Gillespie, 124 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding); Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605, 610-11 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Jefferson County Drainage Dist. No. 6 v. Lower Neches Valley Auth., 876 S.W.2d 940, 959 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1994, writ denied); Morrison v. Morrison, 713 S.W.2d 377, 380-81 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ dism’d). The majority states that these cases “do not adequately explain under what authority the trial court may act in making the belated findings and conclusions when the appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.” I believe the Gillespie court adequately explained the reason for the rule. In Gillespie, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals explained that “[a] request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not seek a substantive change in the judgment.” In re Gillespie, 124 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that “[fjindings of fact and conclusions of law, if made by the trial court, do not vacate or change the judg*218ment[;] they merely explain the reasons for the judgment. Thus, even if a trial court’s plenary power has expired, the trial court is not prevented from entering properly requested findings and conclusions.” Id.(internal citations omitted).
¶3Without explicitly overruling this Court’s precedent to the contrary, the majority concludes that the trial court’s action in signing the belated findings of fact and conclusions of law was a “nullity” because the appellate court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case when the findings were signed. In so holding, the majority relies upon cases that hold that judicial action taken after the expiration of a trial court’s jurisdiction is a nullity. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex.1995); Robertson v. Ranger Ins. Co., 689 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex.1985); Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd. v. Gamez, 151 S.W.3d 574, 593 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.). These cases did not involve late-filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but instead involved orders that were either signed or modified after the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction had expired. See Owens, 907 S.W.2d at 486 (“We declare the order appealed from void because it was signed after the district court’s plenary jurisdiction expired.”); Robertson, 689 S.W.2d at 210 (“The trial court had no power to change or modify its judgment once an appeal had been taken therefrom.”) (emphasis added); Gamez, 151 S.W.3d at 593 (The trial court’s “order modifying the judgment to award appellate fees was signed outside its plenary jurisdiction and is void.”).
¶4Thus, although I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the issue, I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment.