Tex. R. Civ. P. 18. Citing our decision in Storrie v. Shaw, 96 Tex. 618, 75 S.W. 20 (1903), the Lykes court held that a request for findings is a “motion” under rule 18 and thus the rule authorized a successor judge to file findings. 601 S.W.2d at 421-22. But even if rule 18 applies to requests for findings of fact—an issue we need not and do not decide here—we find Lykes to be distinguishable because the former judge in that case “resigned.” Id. at 420. Rule 18 expressly permits a successor judge to determine undisposed motions when the predecessor judge “resigns.” Here, rule 18 does not apply because Judge Lowy did not die, resign, or become unable to hold court. See, e.g., In re J.D.H., No. 05-14-00504-CV, 2016 WL 3946822, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 18, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Instead, Judge Lowy vacated his seat because
holding that rule 18 granted a successor to a resigned judge the power to file findings when a case was transferred between districts holding that neither rule 18 nor section 30002 allowed the successor to an electoral loser to file findings when the transition did not happen during the period in which the trial court was obligated to file findings holding that rule 18 grants authority to some successor judges to file findings holding that rule 18 granted a successor to a deceased judge the power to file findings holding that not even the successor to a retiring judge may file findings because retirement is not listed in rule 18 and has a statutorily distinct meaning from resignation