In the Estate of Mary Genetta Stanfill Patterson v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion filed August 3, 2023
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-23-00035-CV
__________
IN THE ESTATE OF MARY GENETTA STANFILL
PATTERSON, DECEASED
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 25261-CCL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from an Order Probating Will and Authorizing Letters
Testamentary entered on August 31, 2022, wherein the trial court appointed Byron
Freelon Patterson as the independent executor of the will and estate of Mary Genetta
Stanfill Patterson, deceased. Appellants, Donald L. Patterson and Deborah K.
Goldie, filed a notice of restricted appeal from the trial court’s order. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 30.
Prior to the filing of the parties’ briefs, Appellants have filed a Motion to
Render Judgment Effectuating the Parties’ Agreement pursuant to Rule 42.1 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). They state
in the motion that the parties have reached an agreement to settle the issues presented
for consideration pending appeal, as evidenced by a Rule 11 Agreement wherein the
parties have prepared and filed a joint motion with the trial court to issue letters
testamentary to Donald L. Patterson, Deborah K. Goldie, and Byron Freelon
Patterson as joint co-executors. Appellants attached the Rule 11 Agreement filed in
the trial court as an exhibit to their motion. Appellants also attached as an exhibit
the trial court’s Order Approving Agreed Motion to Appoint Joint Co-Executors and
for Issuance of Subsequent Letters Testamentary entered by the trial court on
June 19, 2023. Appellants contend that the trial court’s order of June 19, 2023,
“resolves the issues presented for consideration on appeal.”
Appellants ask this court to render a judgment effectuating the parties’
agreement. Upon the filing of the motion, we requested Appellee, Byron Freelon
Patterson, to file a response. Appellee indicates in his response that he agrees that
the June 19 order has resolved the issues presented for consideration on appeal and
joins in the relief requested by Appellants.
Rule 42.1(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes an
appellate court to dispose of an appeal in accordance with a signed agreement filed
with the clerk. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). This rule authorizes three actions: (A) this
court may render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) this court may
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 agreement; or
(C) this court may abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to
effectuate the agreement. Id.; see Matter of Marriage of McQueen, 597 S.W.3d 53,
54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Here, Appellants seek the relief
2
provided in Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A)—for us to render judgment effectuating the parties’
agreement.1
This court, having examined and considered the motion, is of the opinion that
it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ Motion to Render Judgment
Effectuating the Parties’ Agreement by adopting the trial court’s June 19, 2023,
Order Approving Agreed Motion to Appoint Joint Co-Executors and for Issuance of
Subsequent Letters Testamentary as this court’s judgment, and we remand this case
to the trial court for further proceedings.
Neither Appellants’ motion nor the Rule 11 Agreement reference how costs
should be taxed or whether there is an agreement regarding such costs. “Absent
agreement of the parties,” costs in a civil case involving a voluntary dismissal and
settlement shall be taxed against the appellant. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Therefore,
costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellants.
Appellants’ Motion to Render Judgment Effectuating the Parties’ Agreement
is granted, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
August 3, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
1
Given the fact that the parties have also obtained a new order from the trial court effectuating the
parties’ agreement, it appears that they have also sought relief under Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) and (C).
3