michelle-d-martz-dc-and-trinity-wellness-center-pc-and-eric-hale-and ( 2009 )

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-388-CV

MICHELLE D. MARTZ, D.C. AND                       APPELLANT S

TRINITY WELLNESS CENTER, P.C.          AND APPELLEES

V.

ERIC HALE AND MARGARET HALE                 APPELLEE S         AND APPELLANTS

----------

FROM THE 362nd DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^{(footnote: 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. ^{(footnote: 2)}  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. ^{(footnote: 3)}

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same , for which let execution issue. ^{(footnote: 4)}

PER  CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.  

DELIVERED:  April 23, 2009

FOOTNOTES

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.).

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.