Opinion
01-22-00520-CV
08-15-2022
Aderonke Aderemi v. Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC, as Successor in Interest to PAC
County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County Trial court case number: 1176890
ORDER
APRIL L. FARRIS JUDGE
Appellant Aderonke Aderemi has appealed from the trial court's April 5, 2022 Final Judgment in favor of appellee Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC, as Successor in Interest to PAC. In the final judgment, the trial court ruled that appellee was entitled to possession of the premises located at 21550 Provincial Blvd., Apt. No. 09-921, Katy, Texas 77450. The final judgment further provided that the "amount of the supersedeas bond [was] . . . set at $12,840.00." See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(2)(A).
The appellate record reflects that on April 6, 2022, appellant deposited cash in the amount of $12,480.00 in the trial court's registry, as payment of the supersedeas bond. On June 28, 2022, Massandra filed a "Motion to Issue Writ of Possession" with the trial court. After a hearing on July 12, 2022, the trial court granted Massandra's motion to immediately issue a writ of possession in favor of Massandra. On July 15, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting Massandra's motion, directing "the Harris County Clerk to issue a writ of possession in conformity with the final judgment."
On July 15, 2022, appellant filed an "Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on Trial Court's Issuance of Immediate Writ of Possession After [Relator] Posted a Supersedeas Cash Bond of $12,480.00 and Injunctive Relief on [Real Party in Interest, Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC, as Successor in Interest to PAC's] Constructive Eviction." The mandamus petition was docketed by the Clerk of this Court as appellate case number 01-22-00525-CV. The mandamus petition requested that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to "vacate and stay [its] order to execute an immediate [w]rit of [p]ossession," pending resolution of appellant's direct appeal of the final judgment. On July 15, 2022, the Court stayed enforcement of the writ of possession pending resolution of the mandamus petition.
On August 11, 2022, appellant filed an "Emergency Motion for Review on [Appellant's] Denied Motion to Recuse Judge Audrie Lawson-Evans from Appellant's Hearings Scheduled for [August 12, 2022, August 23, 2022] and Future Pleadings/Motions." The motion states that on July 25, 2022, appellant filed a motion to recuse Judge Audrie Lawton-Evans, and on July 28, 2022, appellant filed an amended motion to recuse Judge Lawton-Evans. On August 1, 2022, Judge Lawton-Evans entered an order declining to voluntarily recuse from the underlying litigation and referred the motion to recuse "to the Presiding Judge of the Eleventh Administrative Judicial Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motion." See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f)(1)(B).
Appellant's motion requests that the Court grant his "[m]otion [f]or [r]eview to [r]ecuse Judge Audrie Lawton[-]Evans from" conducting hearings on August 12th and 23rd, and any and all future motions or pleadings in the underlying litigation. Because appellant's motion to recuse Judge Lawton-Evans was filed after trial of the underlying litigation, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a permits Judge Lawton-Evans to continue hearing matters pending review by the regional presiding judge. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f)(2)(B) ("If a motion is filed after evidence has been offered at trial, the respondent judge may proceed, subject to stay by the regional presiding judge.").
Further, appellate review of an order denying a motion to recuse "may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment." See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(g)(1)(A). Accordingly, we deny appellant's emergency motion for review of the August 1, 2022 order on appellant's motion to recuse Judge Lawton-Evans.
It is so ORDERED.