McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.

Court of Appeals of Texas

McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.

DecidedDecember 31, 2002

Docket01-02-00028-CV

StatusPublished

This text of McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp. (McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp., (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00028-CV

SANDRA LEONA MCCAIN AND JAMES MCCAIN, Appellants

V.

WATERVIEW RESOLUTION CORPORATION F/K/A COLONIAL PACIFIC LEASING CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 747,870

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed on September 14, 2000, awarding monetary damages in favor of plaintiff/appellee. The parties advised the Court that they had settled their dispute and filed an agreed motion to dismiss their appeal, seeking a “take-nothing” judgment against Waterview. A take-nothing judgment against Waterview may be rendered only if the trial court’s judgment is reversed. On June 6, 2002, this Court declined to reverse the trial court’s judgment, when it appeared on the face of the record that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. We ruled in relevant part:

(1)Appellants’ and appellee’s agreed motion to dismiss is denied.

(2)In order for this Court to act other than dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, appellants must file with this Court, within 15 days of this order, a motion reasonably explaining why their notice of appeal was late, in accordance with rule 26.3 and [Coronado]. This Court will entertain a simultaneously filed appellants’ or joint motion to dismiss.

(3)If no motion pursuant to (2) above is filed in this Court, the Court will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

To date, this Court has not received a motion reasonably explaining why appellants’ notice of appeal was late. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued December 31, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00028-CV

SANDRA LEONA MCCAIN AND JAMES MCCAIN, Appellants

V.

WATERVIEW RESOLUTION CORPORATION F/K/A COLONIAL PACIFIC LEASING CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 747,870

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed on September 14, 2000, awarding monetary damages in favor of plaintiff/appellee. The parties advised the Court that they had settled their dispute and filed an agreed motion to dismiss their appeal, seeking a “take-nothing” judgment against Waterview. A take-nothing judgment against Waterview may be rendered only if the trial court’s judgment is reversed. On June 6, 2002, this Court declined to reverse the trial court’s judgment, when it appeared on the face of the record that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. We ruled in relevant part:

(1)Appellants’ and appellee’s agreed motion to dismiss is denied.

(2)In order for this Court to act other than dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, appellants must file with this Court, within 15 days of this order, a motion reasonably explaining why their notice of appeal was late, in accordance with rule 26.3 and [Coronado]. This Court will entertain a simultaneously filed appellants’ or joint motion to dismiss.

(3)If no motion pursuant to (2) above is filed in this Court, the Court will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

To date, this Court has not received a motion reasonably explaining why appellants’ notice of appeal was late. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCain, Sandra Leona & McCain, James v. Waterview Resolution Corp. F/K/A Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccain-sandra-leona-mccain-james-v-waterview-resol-texapp-2002.