M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 9, 2019
Docket10-18-00172-CV
StatusPublished

This text of M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha (M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha) 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
M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00172-CV

M&J BRAZOS VALLEY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LTD., AND MARK HOMEYER, Appellants v.

CHRISTOPHER AND KATIE STAVINOHA, Appellees

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 27,466

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed an agreed motion in which they ask this Court to vacate the

trial court's judgment, dismiss the suit in the trial court, and dismiss this appeal. The

parties have reached an agreement to settle their differences in the underlying

proceeding.

We have no authority to vacate the trial court's judgment, dismiss the suit in the

trial court, and dismiss the appeal. We have the authority, however, to vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case by agreement of the parties. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e).

Accordingly, the “Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Vacate Trial Court

Judgment, and Dismiss Suit” is granted to the extent authorized. The trial court's Final

Judgment, signed on April 18, 2018 is vacated and the case is dismissed with prejudice.

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e). Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety

of the parties' motion, the Court has endeavored to implement the substance of the

parties' agreed motion to achieve the same result. If the parties determine that the

judgment of the Court does not accomplish the parties' intended result, a timely motion

for rehearing must be filed which addresses the manner in which the Court can

implement the agreement of the parties within the limitations of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1; 49.1.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, it is further ordered that all costs are

taxed against the party incurring the same. See id. 42.1(d).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted; judgment vacated; case dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 9, 2019 [CV06]

M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, Ltd. v. Stavinoha Page 2

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mj-brazos-valley-property-holdings-ltd-and-mark-homeyer-v-christopher-texapp-2019.