Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico
This text of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico) 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00023-CV
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellant
v.
Express Limousines, Inc. n/k/a Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico, Appellees
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-15-001520, THE HONORABLE DON R. BURGESS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.
Appellees have filed a notice of opposition to the motion to dismiss appeal. They explain that
the trial court’s order at issue in this appeal is an order granting a motion to dismiss for want of
prosecution without prejudice. Appellees believe that the statute of limitations has expired as to
Wells Fargo’s claims in the underlying proceeding making the order granting the dismissal
effectively with prejudice. Because Wells Fargo has filed a subsequent suit based on the same
claims, appellees argue that they “cannot agree to the Motion to Dismiss as such could be
construed or argued to be an admission the Order is not prejudicial in effect.”
Appellees, however, have not requested affirmative relief in this appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 42.1(a) (authorizing appellate court to dismiss appeal on motion of appellant “unless
disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled”); Devoll v. Depaz, No. 03-12-00668-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6767, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—
Austin June 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (granting appellant’s opposed motion to dismiss appeal,
observing that appellee had not requested affirmative relief, and explaining that appellee had not
cited, and court had not found, authority “which would support the contention that a party who
prevailed at trial has a right to have the correctness of that judgment determined by an appellate
court”). We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.
__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion
Filed: February 6, 2019
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-express-limousines-inc-nka-groovy-automotive-texapp-2019.