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