NUMBER 13-11-00172-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Appellant,
v.
DAVID DAVILA AND ANTONIO FLORES DAVILA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR MINOR CHILDER OF
BEATRICE ADRIANA DAVILA, KRYSTAL DAVILA, AND
NICHOLAS DANIEL DAVILA, Appellees.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Haas-Anderson Construction, Ltd., perfected an appeal of a judgment
rendered against it by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas. On
May 14, 2012, we granted the parties’ motion to abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the trial court because (1) the parties represented that they entered into a Rule
11 settlement agreement with respect to the issues raised in the appeal, but (2) the trial
court was required to determine whether the settlement is in the minor plaintiffs’ best
interests before the terms of agreement may be effectuated. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 44(2),
173.4(c). The trial court approved the settlement agreement by written order dated April
23, 2013. Accordingly, the parties have now filed a joint motion asking this Court to lift
our order of abatement, reverse the current judgment without regard to the merits, and
remand the case to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the
settlement agreement.
The joint motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED PART.1 We hereby LIFT
the abatement previously imposed on May 14, 2012, REINSTATE the appeal, 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 parties’ settlement
agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).
Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, costs will be taxed against the
party incurring same. Cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the
court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Having disposed of the appeal at the
parties’ request, we will entertain no motions for rehearing, and our mandate will issue
forthwith.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of May, 2013.
1
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1, when parties move for disposal of an appeal
due to the execution of a settlement agreement, we may not “reverse” the current judgment as the parties
request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). Rather, we may only (A) “render judgment effectuating the
parties’ agreement[],” (B) “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) “abate the
appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement.” Id.
2