Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd.

DecidedJuly 3, 2002

Docket01-02-00329-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd. (Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd.) 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

Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd., (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion issued July 3, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-02-00329-CV

JON A. POTCINSKE, Appellant

V.

MCDONALD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND MCDONALD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2000-31182

O P I N I O N

According to information provided by the trial court clerk, this is an appeal from an order signed on December 13, 2001granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. It appears that appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on January 12, 2002, but filed his notice of appeal on March 25, 2002, 12 days late. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Appellant has filed a motion to extend time to file notice of appeal, which is still pending before this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The clerk's record is past due. The Court has also been advised that a new trial was granted on March 26, 2002.⁽¹⁾

On May 16, 2002, the Court issued an order stating, in pertinent part, that, a new trial having apparently been granted while the trial court retained plenary jurisdiction, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; therefore, unless within 15 days of the date of the order, appellant filed a motion to retain demonstrating by citation to the law that this Court still had jurisdiction of the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

No motion to retain has been filed. Appellant has not responded to this Court's order of May 16, 2002.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in this Court's order of May 16, 2002. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Appellant is ordered to pay the appellate filing fee of $125 within 10 days of the date of this opinion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Schneider and Justices Nuchia and Radack.

Do not publish.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

1.

The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on February 26, 2002. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). However, a trial court retains plenary power to grant a new trial for 30 days after the overruling of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).

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

Opinion issued July 3, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-02-00329-CV

JON A. POTCINSKE, Appellant

V.

MCDONALD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND MCDONALD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2000-31182

O P I N I O N

According to information provided by the trial court clerk, this is an appeal from an order signed on December 13, 2001granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. It appears that appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on January 12, 2002, but filed his notice of appeal on March 25, 2002, 12 days late. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Appellant has filed a motion to extend time to file notice of appeal, which is still pending before this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The clerk's record is past due. The Court has also been advised that a new trial was granted on March 26, 2002.⁽¹⁾

On May 16, 2002, the Court issued an order stating, in pertinent part, that, a new trial having apparently been granted while the trial court retained plenary jurisdiction, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; therefore, unless within 15 days of the date of the order, appellant filed a motion to retain demonstrating by citation to the law that this Court still had jurisdiction of the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

No motion to retain has been filed. Appellant has not responded to this Court's order of May 16, 2002.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in this Court's order of May 16, 2002. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Appellant is ordered to pay the appellate filing fee of $125 within 10 days of the date of this opinion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Schneider and Justices Nuchia and Radack.

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

1.

The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on February 26, 2002. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). However, a trial court retains plenary power to grant a new trial for 30 days after the overruling of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Potcinske, Jon A. v. McDonald Property Investments, Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potcinske-jon-a-v-mcdonald-property-investments-lt-texapp-2002.