From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Guardianship, Panza

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Oct 13, 2004
No. 04-04-00378-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 13, 2004)

Opinion

No. 04-04-00378-CV

Delivered and Filed: October 13, 2004.

Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-PC-03038, Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding.

Dismissed.

Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Paul W. GREEN, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On September 20, 2004, appellant filed a motion stating that the parties have fully compromised and settled all issues in this appeal. The motion requests that we either: (1) dismiss the appeal and render judgment in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement; or (2) dismiss the appeal and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement.

On September 22, 2004, we notified the appellant that while this court may dismiss an appeal in accordance with a motion of the appellant or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, we are not permitted to dismiss and remand for further proceedings or dismiss and render judgment. Our order stated that the types of judgments this court is authorized to enter are found in Rule 43.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that the court of appeals may:

(a) affirm the trial court's judgment in whole or in part;

(b) modify the trial court's judgment and affirm it as modified;

(c) reverse the trial court's judgment in whole or in part and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered;

(d) reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings;

(e) vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case; or

(f) dismiss the appeal.

Tex.R.App.P. 43.2. Accordingly, we instructed appellant to clarify the nature of the disposition the parties agreed for this court to take with regard to this appeal.

On October 6, 2004, appellant responded to our order. Appellant's response, however, fails to clarify the nature of the disposition the parties have agreed for this court to take with regard to the appeal. We therefore interpret appellant's September 20, 2004 motion as a motion seeking dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 43.2(f). See id. at (f). Appellant's motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Guardianship, Panza

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Oct 13, 2004
No. 04-04-00378-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 13, 2004)
Case details for

In re Guardianship, Panza

Case Details

Full title:IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF LUCILLE F. PANZA, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Oct 13, 2004

Citations

No. 04-04-00378-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 13, 2004)

Citing Cases

Verdugo v. Salinas

We may not dismiss this appeal and render judgment. See In re Guardianship of Panza, No. 04-04-00378-CV,…

Scruggs v. Rockport Terminals, LLC

See id.; see also Kotz v. Baker, No. 04-05-00937-CV, 2005 WL 2737717, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 27,…