Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

Court of Appeals of Texas

Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

DecidedMarch 12, 2019

Docket01-17-00918-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard (Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard) 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

Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

Appellate case number: 01-17-00918-CV

Trial court case number: CV-0077741

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

On March 4, 2019, appellants, Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam, filed a pro se “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” in this Court, but addressed it to the Supreme Court of Texas. With respect to this case, this Court’s judgment was issued on April 3, 2018, appellants’ further motion for rehearing was denied on July 24, 2018, and the petition for review was dismissed on January 18, 2019.

To the extent that appellants also addressed their request to this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” because its plenary power has expired. This Court’s plenary power expired 30 days after it denied appellants’ motion for en banc reconsideration on December 20, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(b). After the expiration of its plenary power, this Court cannot vacate or modify its judgment and Rule 19.3 limits this Court to items such as correcting clerical errors in its judgment/opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3(a)-(d). Because appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” does not fall under one of the permitted post-plenary power items, it must be dismissed.

Accordingly, appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Laura C. Higley_________ x Acting individually Acting for the Panel Date: _March 12, 2019_____________________

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard

Appellate case number: 01-17-00918-CV

Trial court case number: CV-0077741

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

On March 4, 2019, appellants, Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam, filed a pro se “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” in this Court, but addressed it to the Supreme Court of Texas. With respect to this case, this Court’s judgment was issued on April 3, 2018, appellants’ further motion for rehearing was denied on July 24, 2018, and the petition for review was dismissed on January 18, 2019.

To the extent that appellants also addressed their request to this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” because its plenary power has expired. This Court’s plenary power expired 30 days after it denied appellants’ motion for en banc reconsideration on December 20, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(b). After the expiration of its plenary power, this Court cannot vacate or modify its judgment and Rule 19.3 limits this Court to items such as correcting clerical errors in its judgment/opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3(a)-(d). Because appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” does not fall under one of the permitted post-plenary power items, it must be dismissed.

Accordingly, appellants’ “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (i.e. Explanation)” is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Laura C. Higley_________ x Acting individually Acting for the Panel Date: _March 12, 2019_____________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zsolt-petko-and-zsuzsanna-adam-v-carelton-courtyard-texapp-2019.