Rebecca Goostree and Melissa Holland v. Lemuel J. Green, R.J. Sailor, Jr., and Elice Sailor and Tony Britten

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 25, 2003
• Docket: 07-02-00229-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-02-0229-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 25, 2003

______________________________

REBECCA GOOSTREE and MELISSA HOLLAND,

Appellants

v.

LEMUEL J. GREEN, R. J. SAILOR, JR., ELICE SAILOR, and TONY BRITTEN,

Appellees

_______________________________

FROM THE 100^TH DISTRICT COURT OF CARSON COUNTY;

NO. 8845; HON. DAVID M. MCCOY, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., QUINN, J., and BOYD, S.J. ⁽¹⁾

Pending before the court is a joint motion signed by counsel for all parties asking that we "set aside the trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the attached judgment." Such relief is sought, according to the parties, because the cause has been settled. The movants do not explain what they mean by asking us to "set aside" the trial court's judgment. Nonetheless, we construe the term to mean reverse. See Rothlander v. Ayala, 943 S.W.2d 546, 546 (Tex. App.--Waco 1997, no pet.) (so construing the term because an appellate court lacked the authority to simply "vacate" the trial court's judgment).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause "for further proceedings in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties." Id. at 546-47. Each party will bear their own costs of court incurred.

Brian Quinn

Justice

1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003).

. State, 23 S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex.App.--Houston [14^th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd), the court suggested that the factors set out in article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were relevant to setting bond under article 44.04(h). See also Ex Parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's motion without prejudice to presentation of a revised or amended motion.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.