Court Opinion

ID: 2889265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 20:17:48.127962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:18.200266
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-02-0229-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 25, 2003
______________________________

REBECCA GOOSTREE and MELISSA HOLLAND,

									Appellants

v.

LEMUEL J. GREEN, R. J. SAILOR, JR., 
ELICE SAILOR, and TONY BRITTEN,

									Appellees
			       _______________________________

FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CARSON COUNTY;

NO. 8845; HON. DAVID M. MCCOY, PRESIDING
_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., QUINN, J., and BOYD, S.J. (1)
	Pending before the court is a joint motion signed by counsel for all parties asking
that we "set aside the trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the
case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the attached judgment." 
Such relief is sought, according to the parties, because the cause has been settled.  The
movants do not explain what they mean by asking us to "set aside" the trial court's
judgment.  Nonetheless, we construe the term to mean reverse.  See Rothlander v. Ayala,
943 S.W.2d 546, 546 (Tex. App.--Waco 1997, no pet.) (so construing the term because
an appellate court lacked the authority to simply "vacate" the trial court's judgment).  
	Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause "for
further proceedings in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties."  Id. at
546-47.  Each party will bear their own costs of court incurred.

							Brian Quinn
							    Justice

1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.  Tex. Gov't Code
Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). 

. State, 23
S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd), the court suggested that
the factors set out in article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were relevant
to setting bond under article 44.04(h).  See also Ex Parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50
(Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1981).  Accordingly, we overrule appellant's motion without
prejudice to presentation of a revised or amended motion.
	It is so ordered.
							Per Curiam
Do not publish.