Opinion
01-20-00493-CV
06-20-2023
CAROLYN FROST KEENAN, Appellant v. RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-03190
Panel consists of Kelly, Landau, and Radack Justices.
The Honorable Sherry Radack, Senior Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, sitting by assignment.
ORDER STAYING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Carolyn Frost Keenan ("Keenan"), appealed from the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee, River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. ("ROPO"), in ROPO's suit against Keenan for the violation of a restrictive covenant and for declaratory judgment, and on Keenan's counterclaims to quiet title and for violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the Texas Fair Housing Act, and the City of Houston Fair Housing Ordinance. This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Keenan v. River Oaks Prop. Owners, Inc., No. 01-20-00493-CV, 2022 WL 802989, at *24 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 17, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The Texas Supreme Court denied Keenan's petition for review on January 27, 2023, and denied rehearing on May 19, 2023.
See 42 U.S.C. § 3604; Tex. Prop. Code § 301.025; Houston, Tex., Code of Ordinances, ch. 17, art. III, § 17-12(f) (2021).
Keenan now files a motion in this Court asking to stay the issuance of our mandate "pending the filing of her petition [for writ of certiorari] to the United States Supreme Court," citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.2.
Rule 18.2 states, in pertinent part:
A party may move to stay issuance of the mandate pending the United States Supreme Court's disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. The motion must state the grounds for the petition and the circumstances requiring the stay. The appellate court authorized to issue the mandate may grant a stay if it finds that the grounds are substantial and that the petitioner or others would incur serious hardship from the mandate's issuance if the United States Supreme Court were later to reverse the judgment. . . .See Tex. R. App. P. 18.2.
In her motion, Keenan asserts that her "grounds are substantial" because she believes that this Court's opinion conflicts with those of other courts. She asserts that she would suffer "serious hardship" from the mandate's issuance because the trial court's order requires her to remove 1,260 square feet of concrete from her property and to pay ROPO over $665,000.00 in attorneys' fees. ROPO has not filed a response to Keenan's motion.
We grant Keenan's motion and will stay issuance of our mandate until further order. See Browder v. Moree, No. 03-19-00381-CV, 2022 WL 2867954, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin July 21, 2022, order); McIntosh v. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, No. 07-12-00196-CV, 2014 WL 4656628, at *1 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Sept. 17, 2014, order). We order Keenan to file in this Court a written status report within 45 days after the date of this Order, advising this Court of the status of her petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. If Keenan fails to timely file her status report, we will issue our mandate without further notice.
It is so ORDERED.