Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2010

First National Bank v. Mitchell C. Chaney

First National Bank v. Mitchell C. Chaney
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 15, 2010

First National Bank v. Mitchell C. Chaney

Opinion









NUMBER 13-09-00440-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________



FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Appellant,



v.





MITCHELL C. CHANEY, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________



On appeal from the 107th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and GarzaMemorandum Opinion Per Curiam



The parties to this appeal have filed a "Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment as to First National Bank only and to dismiss appeals pursuant to settlement." The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court's opinion that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. (1) Accordingly, without regard to the merits, we vacate the judgment as to appellant, First National Bank (2), 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); 43.2(d).

The parties request that the Court direct the District Clerk to return the cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond to appellant, together with any interest to which appellant may be entitled. The request is GRANTED. We direct the District Clerk to return to appellant the deposit of cash in lieu of supersedeas bond made by appellant, together with any interest to which appellant may be entitled.

The parties also request immediate issuance of our mandate. See Tex. R. App. P.18.1(c). The request is GRANTED. We direct the Clerk of the Court to issue the mandate immediately. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).



PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

15th day of April, 2010.









1.Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties' agreements or to vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; we cannot do both. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B).

2.John Woodard did not perfect an appeal. Therefore, the judgment against John Woodard and in favor of Mitchell C. Chaney remains in full force and effect.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.