Mills v. Haggard

Court of Appeals of Texas

Mills v. Haggard

17 S.W.3d 462, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 3661, 2000 WL 726069

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 31, 2000

Docket10-00-122-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 S.W.3d 462 (Mills v. Haggard) 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

Mills v. Haggard, 17 S.W.3d 462, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 3661, 2000 WL 726069 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Julie Mills and Multimortgage Bancorp, Inc. (Mills) appealed a judgment in favor of Mittie, James, Rex and Robbie Haggard (the Haggards). A dispute has now arisen between Mills and the court reporters who are preparing the record for appeal. We abate the appeal and refer the cáse to the’ trial court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve this dispute.

This Court received notification from one of the court reporters that the record had not been filed because Mills had not made arrangements to pay for the record’s preparation. ■ TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). Two weeks later, Mills filed a motion for show cause alleging that arrangements had been made for the payment of the record and that the record was paid in full. Mills alleges that the funds paid for the preparation of the record had been used to offset bills created by the trial attorney in this cause. The reporter’s record is now past due. Id. 35.1.

Mills asks us to order the court reporters in this cause to appear before us and show cause why they should not be ordered to file the record and to pay costs for the fifing of the motion. Courts of appeals are not properly equipped for evi- *463 dentiary hearings. Bivins v. Bivins, 709 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1986, no writ). The trial court is an appropriate forum for this matter.

Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows appellate courts to suspend the operation of a rule for good cause and order a different procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The rule is reserved for cases where suspending a rule will actually facilitate processing the case through the appellate court. See Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). As noted previously, the record has not been filed because there is a dispute about whether arrangements or payment for it has been made. This dispute will needlessly delay the processing of this case until it is resolved. Thus, there is good cause to suspend the rule mandating the filing of the reporter’s record and abate this appeal for an evidentiary hearing.

Mills motion for show cause is denied.

However, this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court for an evidentia-ry hearing on the issue of whether arrangements were made or payment was made for the preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial court shall make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and forward a transcription of the hearing to this Court along with its findings and conclusions within thirty days from the date of this order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Julie Mills and Multimortgage Bancorp, Inc. (Mills) appealed a judgment in favor of Mittie, James, Rex and Robbie Haggard (the Haggards). A dispute has now arisen between Mills and the court reporters who are preparing the record for appeal. We abate the appeal and refer the cáse to the’ trial court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve this dispute.

This Court received notification from one of the court reporters that the record had not been filed because Mills had not made arrangements to pay for the record’s preparation. ■ TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). Two weeks later, Mills filed a motion for show cause alleging that arrangements had been made for the payment of the record and that the record was paid in full. Mills alleges that the funds paid for the preparation of the record had been used to offset bills created by the trial attorney in this cause. The reporter’s record is now past due. Id. 35.1.

Mills asks us to order the court reporters in this cause to appear before us and show cause why they should not be ordered to file the record and to pay costs for the fifing of the motion. Courts of appeals are not properly equipped for evi- *463 dentiary hearings. Bivins v. Bivins, 709 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1986, no writ). The trial court is an appropriate forum for this matter.

Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows appellate courts to suspend the operation of a rule for good cause and order a different procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The rule is reserved for cases where suspending a rule will actually facilitate processing the case through the appellate court. See Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). As noted previously, the record has not been filed because there is a dispute about whether arrangements or payment for it has been made. This dispute will needlessly delay the processing of this case until it is resolved. Thus, there is good cause to suspend the rule mandating the filing of the reporter’s record and abate this appeal for an evidentiary hearing.

Mills motion for show cause is denied.

However, this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court for an evidentia-ry hearing on the issue of whether arrangements were made or payment was made for the preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial court shall make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and forward a transcription of the hearing to this Court along with its findings and conclusions within thirty days from the date of this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.W.3d 462, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 3661, 2000 WL 726069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-haggard-texapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack