WADSWORTH BUSINESS CENTER-FROM A DISTRICT COURT WILLOWBROOK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. OF GEORGE T. CONNELL, JR., ET AL., APPELLEES

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-87-00739-CV
WADSWORTH BUSINESS CENTER-FROM A DISTRICT COURT
WILLOWBROOK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
ET AL.,
 
        APPELLANTS,
v. OF
 
GEORGE T. CONNELL, JR., ET AL.,
 
        APPELLEES. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES HOWELL, LAGARDE AND KINKEADE
OPINION BY JUSTICE LAGARDE
AUGUST 3, 1989
OPINION ON APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
THIRD MOTION FOR REHEARING
        This Court now has before it Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration of Second Motion for Rehearing, and, in the Alternative, Third Motion for Rehearing, in which appellants make this Court aware, by way of exhibits to such motion, of the ruling of the Supreme Court in connection with respondents' (appellants') unobjected-to Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Application for Writ of Error filed by petitioners (appellees) on March 21, 1989. The verified exhibits reflect the following:
            On February 24, 1989, all respondents (appellants) in this case filed a motion for extension of time to file response to application for writ of error asserting that petitioners' (appellees') application for writ of error was premature under the Supreme Court's decision in Doctors Hospital Facilities v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 750 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. 1988), and requesting a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond to the application.
            Subsequent to its ruling in Rose v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 32 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 279 (March 9, 1989), the clerk of the Supreme Court, by way of a letter dated March 27, 1989, signed by Barry E. Pickett, deputy, informed counsel that "Motion for extension of time to file reply ... was granted with a notation. 'Reply is due to be filed in this office 30 days after overruling of the last timely filed motion for rehearing by any party in the Court of Appeals.'"
        Appellants contend that, at least in this case, the Supreme Court appears to be adhering to its position in Doctors Hospital, and that its order granting extension cannot be squared with our holding on rehearing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on appellants' second motion for rehearing.
        In their response to appellants' motion for reconsideration, appellees have informed this Court that they, as petitioners, did not object to respondents' motion for extension of time; that they concur with appellants' analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling; and that they expressly join in appellants' request for this Court to grant appellants' motion for reconsideration.
        Given the agreement of the parties, and the uncertainty of the law regarding this Court's jurisdiction, as reflected in our opinion on second motion for rehearing, and subject to a subsequent determination by the Supreme Court that this Court lacks jurisdiction, we grant appellants' motion for reconsideration, and having done so, we overrule appellants' second and third motions for rehearing. Nothing contained herein, however, should be construed as holding either that we have jurisdiction or that we lack jurisdiction.
 
                                                          
                                                          SUE LAGARDE
                                                          JUSTICE
PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
87-00739.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[870739F]