From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Emerald Residential Prop. Mgmt.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 11, 2024
No. 11-24-00131-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)

Opinion

11-24-00131-CV 11-24-00132-CV

07-11-2024

MARK CARROLL AND CHARLOTTE CARROLL, Appellants v. EMERALD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Appellee


On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023-008652-1

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In trial court cause number 2023-008652-1, Appellants, Mark Carroll and Charlotte Carroll, filed pro se notices of appeal from (1) an order denying their motion to recuse the trial court judge, and (2) the trial court's order granting Appellee Emerald Residential Property Management's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a, 91a. At the time Appellants filed the notices of appeal, the trial court had not entered a final, appealable order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) ("An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.); see In re Lakeside Resort JV, LLC, No. 22-1100, 2024 WL 2095990, at *1, 5 (Tex. May 10, 2024) (An assertion of non-appealability "expressly and affirmatively undermines or contradicts any such intent."). On April 29, 2024, upon receipt of the trial court's final order, the Second Court of Appeals continued both appeals. The appeals were transferred to this court on May 10, 2024.

Upon receiving and filing Appellants' docketing statement, we noted in a letter to the parties that the appeals originated from the same final judgment and an order preceding that final judgment. As a result, we inquired whether the appellate causes should be consolidated, and whether the parties request that we consolidate the appeals. In response, Appellants opposed consolidation, stating that the recusal and dismissal "are two completely separate matters with different foundational elements and evidence requiring their own argument before this Court. The Appellants believe this Court will reverse the 91a Dismissal . . . but that dismissal is not dispositive to recusal, nor vice versa." Appellee agreed with our assessment and requested that the appeals be consolidated.

Because both of the orders appealed were made final-and therefore appealable-by the trial court's final judgment in the proceeding below, we consolidate these appeals. Accordingly, we consolidate our Cause No. 11-24-00131-CV and Cause No. 11-24-00132 for all purposes. All future correspondence and filings related to the appeals from trial court cause number 2023-008652-1 should bear this court's docket number 11-24-00131-CV.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Emerald Residential Prop. Mgmt.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 11, 2024
No. 11-24-00131-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)
Case details for

Carroll v. Emerald Residential Prop. Mgmt.

Case Details

Full title:MARK CARROLL AND CHARLOTTE CARROLL, Appellants v. EMERALD RESIDENTIAL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

Date published: Jul 11, 2024

Citations

No. 11-24-00131-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)