In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-15-00407-CV
________________________
MEREDITH KATHRYN HIGHSMITH, APPELLANT
V.
CHARLES ROBERT HIGHSMITH, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 126th District Court
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court No. D-1-FM-15-001072; Honorable Amy Clark Meachum, Presiding
October 17, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL, PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Pending before this court is the Unopposed Motion to Refer to Alternative
Dispute Resolution and Stay Appeal of Appellee, Charles Robert Highsmith. By this
motion, Appellee seeks to “stay the appeal so that both sides may focus on resolving
the case in mediation.” Pursuant to Rule 10.1(a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, counsel of Appellee has certified that he has conferred with counsel for
Appellant, Meredith Kathryn Highsmith, regarding the substance of this motion and she
has indicated that she does not oppose the granting of the requested relief. Pleading
alternatively, Appellee requests that the deadline for filing a motion for rehearing be
extended.
Because “staying” an appeal without extending the time to file a motion for
rehearing is problematic once an opinion and judgment have issued, and because the
Seventh Court of Appeals does not customarily refer pending cases to alternate dispute
resolution, we construe Appellee’s motion as a motion to extend time for filing a motion
for rehearing pursuant to Rule 49.8 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Furthermore, to expedite our decision, we suspend the formalities of that rule regarding
the filing of a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
As construed, we grant Appellee’s motion and extend the time for filing a motion
for rehearing until January 16, 2018. Having allowed a sufficient extension of time to
allow the parties to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matters in
controversy, we deny Appellee’s request for referral to alternate dispute resolution.
Per Curiam
2
Meredith Kathryn Highsmith v. Charles Robert Highsmith
Combined Opinion