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

Court of Appeals of Texas

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

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 9, 2019·No. 10-18-00172-CV·Published

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

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

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

Pincite

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.