-
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-388-CV MICHELLE D. MARTZ, D.C. AND APPELLANTS TRINITY WELLNESS CENTER, P.C. AND APPELLEES V. ERIC HALE AND MARGARET HALE APPELLEES AND APPELLANTS ---------- FROM THE 362nd DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 AND JUDGMENT ---------- We have considered the parties’ “Agreement Regarding Disposition Of Appeals,” which we construe to be a motion for disposition. It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.2 1 … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 … The parties ask us to render a judgment affirming in part and setting aside in part. We cannot do both. Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits us only to either render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreements or set aside the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B); Cunningham v. Cunningham, 2-08-362-CV,
2008 WL 5479677, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2008, no pet.) (memo op.). Accordingly, without regard to the merits, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.3 Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.4 PER CURIAM PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ. DELIVERED: April 23, 2009 3 … See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d); Innovative Office Sys., Inc. v. Johnson,
911 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. 1995). 4 … See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Document Info
Docket Number: 02-08-00388-CV
Filed Date: 4/23/2009
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/1/2016