in the Matter of the Marriage of Basim Mousilli and Noura Sweed

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 19, 2021
• Docket: 14-21-00202-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Motion Granted in Part and Order filed April 19, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-21-00202-CV ____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BASIM MOUSILLI AND NOURA SWEED

On Appeal from the 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-49635

ORDER

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order appointing a receiver signed on April 9, 2021 (“the Receivership Order”). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(1). On April 16, 2021, appellant Basim Mousilli filed an emergency motion asking this court to stay (1) the Receivership Order, and (2) the trial set for May 17, 2021 in this cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3 (allowing appellate court in appeal from interlocutory order to make any temporary orders necessary to preserve parties’ rights until disposition of appeal).1

The Receivership Order authorizes the receiver to sell certain real property. The motion states the property is the house in which appellant and his two children live. The Receivership Order directs that the owner(s) of the property immediately deliver to the receiver all keys, loan documents, and other items related to the property.

In order to preserve appellant’s rights pending the disposition of this appeal, the court orders as follows:

1. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART only as to the Receivership Order.

2. The court requests that appellee Noura Sweed file a response that addresses both the request to stay the Receivership Order and the request to stay the trial. The response is due on or before April 29, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.

1 Appellant also filed the motion in appeal 14-20-00866-CV, Mousilli v. Sweed, which is an appeal from a protective order rendered against him in trial court cause number 2020-48880. It appears the Receivership Order was not entered in that cause and that no trial is set in that cause. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant appellant’s motion in appeal 14-20-00866-CV. A separate ruling denying the motion will be issued in that appeal.