Opinion
No. 13-08-00338-CV
Opinion delivered and Filed October 7, 2008.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Justices YAÑEZ, RODRIGUEZ, and VELA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator, Natalia Castro, filed a "TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4 Motion to Decrease Excessive Amount of Security Ordered by the Trial Court; Alternatively, Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Supporting Brief," through which she seeks to decrease the amount of security ordered by the trial court to supersede the underlying judgment. Relator complains that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of a supersedeas bond at $300,854.69.
In the instant case, an appeal of the underlying judgment has been perfected in this Court in Cause No. 13-08-00298-CV. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and will review matters pertaining to the supersedeas bond by motion filed in that appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a); In re De Los Santos, No. 13-07-00571-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7585, at *1-2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 19, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). We therefore conclude that relator has an adequate appellate remedy and is not entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 — 29 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (relator must show it has no adequate remedy by law).
This Court previously ordered stayed the trial court's order of May 20, 2008, requiring a supersedeas bond in the amount of $300,854.69 and stayed execution or enforcement of the underlying judgment pending this Court's ruling under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c). That stay is dissolved as to this appellate cause, but remains in effect as to appellate Cause No. 13-08-00298-CV, pending our disposition of the motion filed therein. See id. 52.10(b) ("Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.").
The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).