# Firststone Heights LLC (1512 Forest Trail Apts) v. Travis Central Appraisal District > Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · October 28, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4583076 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) - **Decided:** October 28, 2020 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4583076 ## Opinion text TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00108-CV Firststone Heights LLC (1512 Forest Trail Apts), Appellant v. Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellee FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-17-004782, THE HONORABLE SCOTT JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Travis County in a suit contesting the order of the Appraisal Review Board setting the value of a lot in Austin. Appellant is Firststone Heights LLC1 and appellee is the Travis County Central Appraisal District (District). We will reverse the judgment. Firststone set the case for trial but failed to appear when the case was called. The District, however, was present and announced ready. In the absence of Firststone, the trial court proceeded to try the case and rendered judgment fixing the appraised value of the property. The judgment recited in part, “After considering the pleadings, evidence, and [the District’s] 1 The petition, answer, judgment, motion for new trial, motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions, and order denying motion for new trial and motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions refer to appellant as “Firststone.” But appellant’s notice of appeal and brief in this Court style appellant as “Firestone.” We will follow the usage in the trial court. arguments, and because [Firststone] failed to appear and present evidence or argument, the Court rules in favor of [the District].” Firststone argues that the proper remedy was dismissal of the case. We agree. When a plaintiff fails to appear and prosecute his case, the trial court cannot try the plaintiff’s cause of action, and the only remedy is to dismiss the same. Smock v. Fischel, 207 S.W.2d 891, 902 (Tex. 1948); Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight, 77 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1934, writ ref’d); State v. Herrera, 25 S.W.3d 326, 328 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.); see Chacon v. Jellison, No. 03-02-00072-CV, 2003 WL 1560184, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 27, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that when plaintiff fails to appear for trial, trial court may only dismiss plaintiff’s claims without prejudice). We reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment dismissing Firstone’s action without prejudice. __________________________________________ Bob E. Shannon, Justice Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Shannon* Reversed and Rendered Filed: October 28, 2020 * Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b). 2 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4583076. Public record. Not legal advice.