Plainscapital Bank v. Rogers

Full title: PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant, v. MICHAEL ROGERS, Appellee.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Jan 8, 2016

NUMBER 13-15-00285-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2016)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-15-00285-CV

01-08-2016

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant, v. MICHAEL ROGERS, Appellee.

Per Curiam

On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam

Appellant PlainsCapital Bank (the Bank) filed this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order granting appellee Michael Rogers's request for a temporary injunction in a suit on a promissory note and deed of trust. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). On appeal, the Bank argues that the trial court erred when it entered a temporary injunction order that prevented the Bank from foreclosing on its security interest in collateral property, after the borrower Far Properties, L.P., allegedly defaulted on the note. The Bank contends that we should reverse the trial court and dissolve the temporary injunction because (1) Rogers does not have standing to sue on the promissory note or deed of trust; and (2) in the alternative, the temporary injunction is void because it does not "adhere to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure."

On December 2, 2015, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court for clarification of, among other things, its temporary injunction order in light of Far Properties, L.P., being a party to the lawsuit, with findings to be filed on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the abatement order. No findings have been filed. However, according to our review of the supplemental clerk's record filed in this cause on January 5, 2016, the trial court signed an agreed order of dismissal without prejudice on December 15, 2015. The order was filed with the district clerk on December 18, 2015. By their signatures, all parties agreed as to the dismissal order's substance and form.

Upon review of the documents before this Court, the parties dismissed this lawsuit by agreement, and therefore, there is no longer a final appealable order before this Court. The Court, hereby reinstating this appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should now be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 8th day of January, 2016.