Opinion
14-22-00691-CV
07-27-2023
HELEN CRAWFORD AND ALL RESIDENTS, Appellants v. AZH LANDS, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1188879
Panel Consists of Christopher Chief Justice and Jewell and Spain Justices.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Appellants appeal the judgment of the county civil court at law ("county court") that was signed September 28, 2022, awarding possession of a residence to appellee in a forcible detainer action. The judgment set the supersedeas bond amount at $8,000 to suspend the judgment for ten months. After the expiration of ten months, the judgment orders the defendants to pay $1,000 per month into the court's registry to maintain the bond.
Appellants filed a motion asking this court to review the amount of supersedeas bond set by the county court. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a). On March 27, 2023, we held that the record contained no evidence of the property's rental value to support the amount of supersedeas. We directed the county court to conduct further proceedings limited to taking evidence to determine the amount of security and to sign an appropriate order pertaining to the security that must be posted to continue the suspension of the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(d) (allowing remand for taking evidence); see Devine v. Devine, No. 07-15-00126-CV, 2015 WL 5228254, at *4 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Sept. 2, 2015, order) (per curiam).
On June 8, 2023, after a hearing on the matter, the county court ordered the same amount as previously ordered in its judgment, (1) setting the supersedeas bond at $8,000 to suspend the judgment for ten months and (2) after the expiration of ten months, ordering the defendants to pay $1,000 per month into the court's registry to maintain the bond.
Appellants have filed another motion asking this court to review the county court's second supersedeas determination. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a).
A. Review of Supersedeas Bond
Rule 24.4 authorizes an appellate court to engage in a limited supersedeas review. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. On any party's motion, we may review: (1) the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount of security; (2) the sureties on a bond; (3) the type of security; (4) the decision whether to permit suspension of enforcement; and (5) the trial court's exercise of discretion in order the amount and type of security. Tex.R.App.P. 24.4(a). We may require that the amount of the "bond, deposit, or other security be increased or decreased" and that "another bond, deposit, or security be provided and approved by the trial court clerk." Tex.R.App.P. 24.4(d).
We review the trial court's supersedeas rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Drake Interiors, Inc. v. Thomas, 531 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (mem. op. on motion to review supersedeas bond); EnviroPower, L.L.C. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 265 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably considering all the circumstances of the case. See Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404, 410 (Tex. 2011).
B. Analysis
Appellants argue that the supersedeas amount set by the county court on remand is unsupported by legally or factually sufficient evidence and is excessive. We disagree. During the hearing, a representative for appellee, Amos Halfon, testified that he purchased the property in dispute at a tax auction in 2019. Halfon explained the property was purchased for his real estate holdings company through which he leases rental properties. Halfon has been in the rental property business in Houston since 2014. To determine the rental value of the property, Halfon testified that he researches comparable properties in the area, calculates his expenses in holding the property, and allows for some profit off the property. Based on his research, Halfon testified a fair market rental value would be $1,000 a month. According to Halfon, he paid $4,000 in 2022 in property taxes and estimates that number to increase to $5,000 or $6,000 in 2023. Since purchasing the property in 2019, Halfon has been unable to collect rent from appellants and they have been residing at the property without payment.
After Halfon's testimony, the court concluded that the bond should be set at $8,000 for ten months, which is 8 times the monthly rental value to hold the property for a period of 10 months. As stated above, the county court further ordered the defendants to pay $1,000 per month into the court's registry after 10 months to maintain the bond.
We conclude the county court did not abuse its discretion in setting this bond amount based on the approximate monthly rental value. See Johnson v. Villatoro, No. 14-18-00150-CV, 2018 WL 3848070, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the supersedeas bond at 10 times the monthly rent in a forcible detainer action); see Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, No. 01-06-00963-CV, 2007 WL 2894167 at *5-6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 4, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (eleven times monthly rent not an abuse of discretion); see Brady v. Compass Bank, No. 04-19-00021-CV, 2019 WL 1459257, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio April 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (twelve times monthly rent not an abuse of discretion).
Appellants also contend that the supersedeas amount will cause substantial economic harm. See Tex. R. App. P. (b). Appellants, however, did not appear at the June 8 hearing and presented no evidence on this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. (c). Appellants had the burden to prove that they would suffer substantial economic harm if the supersedeas amount was not decreased. In re Nalle Plastics Fam. Ltd. P'ship, 406 S.W.3d 168, 170 (Tex. 2013); Drake Interiors, Inc. v. Thomas, 531 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, order). Appellants have neither met their burden nor preserved this issue on appeal. See Ramco Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Anglo Dutch (Tenge) L.L.C., 171 S.W.3d 905, 920 (Tex. 2005); See Law Eng'g & Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Slosburg Co., 100 S.W.3d 389, 390 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, order); Tex. Soccer Found. v. Sting Soccer Found., No. 05-19-01228-CV, 2020 WL 3445815 at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 24, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, we do not address appellants' alternative argument that the bond amount will cause them substantial economic harm.
C. Conclusion
We affirm the amount of the supersedeas bond set by the county court. This court's June 26, 2023 stay is lifted. Appellee may seek a writ to enforce its judgment unless, within 10 days from today's date, appellants post the bond as ordered by the county court. The court instructs appellees to inform this court if the judgment is executed. Appellants' opening brief is due 10 days from today's date.