Court Opinion

ID: 9683317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:26:37.591507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.090923
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On October 13, 1983, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction over appellant’s motion to modify in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Appellant and appellee have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that they have settled all the issues on appeal and that on September 16, 1983 the trial court signed an agreed order in their suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
The appellate courts will not usually dismiss a case on appeal after an opinion in the case has' been issued. Alamo Motor Lines Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chaffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America Local No. 657 et al, 229 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1950, no writ); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 393 v. Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Co., 220 S.W.2d 219 at p. 254, on motion to dismiss, (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1949, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Martinez v. Kildey, 117 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1938, no writ).
The appellant’s supplemental motion for rehearing shows no reason to depart from this rule. The trial court’s prior order declining jurisdiction and our subsequent opinion will not affect the authority of the trial court under Tex.Fam.Code Ann. sec. 11.052(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.1982) to exercise its continuing jurisdiction on written agreement of the parties. Further, section 14.06, of the Texas Family Code provides that the parties may enter into a written agreement modifying prior orders providing for conservatorship and support of the child. Thus, our opinion does not interfere with the trial court’s agreed order dated September 16, 1983 resolving the issues in dispute between the parties.
The motion to dismiss is denied.