What is the litigation takeaway from Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc.?

To ensure a "clean break" and prevent "buyer's remorse" after reaching a settlement during an appeal, practitioners should file a voluntary motion to dismiss under TRAP 42.1(a)(1) and specifically request that the court preclude any motions for rehearing. This strategy secures immediate finality and protects the settlement from last-minute attempts to revive litigation.

What is the summary of Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc.?

While an appeal regarding a district court judgment was pending, the appellant (Best Choice Restaurants) and the appellee reached a settlement agreement. The appellant subsequently filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), requesting that each party bear its own costs as agreed. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under TRAP 42.1, finding that the settlement rendered the appeal unnecessary and that dismissal would not prejudice the rights of any other party. The court granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and explicitly ordered that no motions for rehearing would be entertained to ensure the immediate and absolute finality of the settlement.

How can an appellant voluntarily dismiss an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals?

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), an appellant may file a motion to dismiss the appeal if they no longer desire to pursue the matter. In Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc., the Thirteenth Court of Appeals granted such a motion after the parties reached an out-of-court agreement.

How are appellate costs allocated when a case is dismissed by agreement in Texas?

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(A), the court may order each party to bear their own costs if the parties have reached an agreement to that effect. In Number 13-24-00338-CV, the court followed the parties' motion and ordered that Best Choice Restaurants, LLC and Edna Lumber Co., Inc. each bear their own costs.

Is a motion for rehearing available after a voluntary dismissal of an appeal?

Generally, when a Texas appellate court dismisses an appeal at the appellant's request under Rule 42.1, the court may specify that no motion for rehearing will be entertained. Chief Justice Tijerina explicitly stated this in the memorandum opinion for Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc. to ensure finality following the parties' agreement.

What is the procedural mechanism used by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals to finalize a settlement-based dismissal?

The court issues a memorandum opinion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 to formally grant the motion to dismiss and dispose of the appeal. In Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc., this procedural step was taken by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals to officially close the case after the parties settled.

What was the holding in Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc. regarding appellate procedure?

While the provided memorandum opinion does not reach the merits of the underlying dispute, it demonstrates that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi – Edinburg) strictly adheres to Rule 42.1(a)(1) for voluntary dismissals. This allows parties to settle disputes privately and avoid further litigation costs while ensuring the appellate record is formally closed.

Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc.

Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc., 13-24-00338-CV, January 29, 2026.

On appeal from Unknown

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals granted an appellant’s voluntary motion to dismiss an appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) following a successful settlement between the parties. The court’s order not only dismissed the matter but expressly prohibited the filing of any motions for rehearing, thereby securing immediate and absolute finality for the settling parties.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-stakes environment of Texas family law, particularly in complex property divisions or contentious custody modifications, the transition from a "settlement reached" to a "case closed" is often fraught with the risk of buyer’s remorse. This ruling emphasizes the strategic use of Rule 42.1 to achieve an expedited "clean break." By securing a dismissal that precludes rehearing, practitioners can insulate a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) or a Rule 11 agreement from eleventh-hour attempts by an opposing party to revive appellate litigation. This is especially critical in divorce actions where the finality of asset valuation and the commencement of possession schedules depend on the immediate termination of the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Appellant Best Choice Restaurants, LLC, sought to challenge a judgment rendered by the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County. While the appeal was pending before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the parties engaged in negotiations and successfully reached a settlement agreement. Following the execution of this agreement, the appellant filed a formal motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that they no longer desired to pursue the litigation and requested that each party bear its own costs in accordance with their settlement terms.

Issues Decided

The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant satisfied the procedural requirements for a voluntary dismissal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and whether the court should exercise its discretion to finalize the matter without the possibility of further post-judgment briefing.

Rules Applied

The court relied upon Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which permits an appellate court to dismiss an appeal upon the motion of the appellant, provided the dismissal does not prevent another party from seeking relief they would otherwise be entitled to. The court further applied Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) regarding the allocation of costs, allowing the parties to deviate from the standard assessment of costs against the appellant by agreeing to bear their own respective expenses.

Application

The court’s analysis was straightforward and focused on the promotion of judicial economy and the enforcement of the parties' intent. Upon reviewing the appellant’s motion, the court noted that the existence of a settlement agreement rendered the continued pursuit of the appeal unnecessary. Because the appellant explicitly requested dismissal and there were no competing claims for relief from the appellee that would be prejudiced by such a dismissal, the court found that the requirements of Rule 42.1 were met. The court purposefully integrated the parties' agreement regarding costs into the judgment to ensure the mandate would reflect the settled terms. Most significantly, the court utilized its plenary power to truncate the standard appellate timeline by declaring that no motions for rehearing would be entertained, a move designed to prevent the resurrection of the dispute.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the motion to dismiss was meritorious under TRAP 42.1(a)(1) because the parties had reached a resolution and the appellant had formally withdrawn their request for appellate review. Consequently, the court ordered the appeal dismissed in its entirety. The court further held that, pursuant to the parties' agreement and TRAP 42.1(a)(2)(A), the costs of the appeal were to be borne by the party that incurred them. Finally, the court held that because the dismissal was granted at the appellant's specific request following a settlement, the right to file a motion for rehearing was extinguished. This holding ensures that the dismissal acts as an immediate and irrevocable termination of the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the controversy.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, this case serves as a roadmap for terminating an appeal once an MSA has been signed. Rather than simply letting an appeal linger or waiting for the court to dismiss for want of prosecution, proactive filing under Rule 42.1(a)(1) allows the parties to control the narrative of the dismissal. It is particularly useful when a settlement is reached shortly before oral argument or a scheduled opinion release, as it allows the parties to "pull the plug" before the court issues a ruling that might upset the balance of the settlement.

Checklists

Securing the Appellate Settlement

Ensure the written settlement agreement (Rule 11 or MSA) contains an express waiver of further appellate rights and a commitment to dismiss the pending appeal.
Specify in the agreement how appellate costs (filing fees, record preparation) will be allocated to satisfy TRAP 42.1(a)(2).
Draft the Motion to Dismiss to include a statement that the parties have reached an agreement and the appellant no longer desires to pursue the matter.

Ensuring Absolute Finality

Request in the prayer of your Motion to Dismiss that the court "preclude any motions for rehearing."
If the settlement is joint, file a joint motion under Rule 42.1(a)(2) to further signal to the court that there is no opposition to immediate finality.
Monitor the court’s order to ensure the language regarding "no motion for rehearing" is included, providing your client with the security that the case cannot be reopened.

Citation

Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc., No. 13-24-00338-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here ~~83b7585b-8c9a-44fe-9608-8d63737e40fb~~