Opinion
01-24-00639-CV
10-01-2024
Khaleel Daniel v. Texas Excel Property Management Services Corp.
County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, No. 1230941.
ORDER
Amparo Monique Guerra, Judge
Appellant, Khaleel Daniel, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's August 26, 2024 Final Judgment and Order of Possession in the underlying forcible detainer action brought by appellee, Texas Excel Property Management. On September 11, 2024, appellant filed a "Motion to Stay the Writ of Possession." In the motion, appellant requested that the Court "stay the execution" of the trial court's judgment pending his appeal of the judgment.
On September 17, 2024, the Court denied appellant's motion to stay. In our order, the Court noted that suspension of a judgment pending appeal is governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, which requires a judgment debtor, such as appellant, to file a bond or make a deposit with the trial court in lieu of a bond. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(a). Here, the trial court's final judgment set a supersedeas bond at $8,750.00 to supersede the judgment pending appeal. The Court denied appellant's motion to stay because the appellate record did not, and does not now, include any evidence that appellant has complied with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to suspend enforcement of the trial court's judgment pending appeal.
On September 17, 2024, appellant filed an "Emergency Motion to Reconsider," requesting that the Court reconsider the September 17, 2024 order denying appellant's motion to stay. In his motion, appellant argues that the Court should stay enforcement of the judgment because he is "presumed indigent" pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, noting that he filed an affidavit of indigency in the justice court and in this Court. He further argued that because no court has overruled his claim of indigence, he should not be required to pay a bond or deposit to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.
Pursuant to appellant's affidavit of indigency, filed both in the justice court and this Court, he is entitled to proceed without payment of court costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a) (indigent party exempted from paying "costs," defined as "filing fees charged by the appellate court); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(a) (indigent party exempted from paying "costs," defined as "any fee charged by the [trial] court . . . including, but not limited to filing fees, fees for issuance and service of process, . . . and fees charged by the clerk or court reporter for preparation of the appellate record"). We therefore direct the Clerk of this Court to note that appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs.
However, a party proceeding as indigent is not exempted from paying a supersedeas bond to appeal a judgment from a county court to an intermediate appellate court. See Hardaway v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., et al., No. 01-17-00677-CV, 2019 WL 3783111, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("A party's indigence does not relieve the party of the obligation to file a supersedeas bond."); Jimison v. Maedc-Hulen Bend Senior Comm., L.P., No. 02-23-00206-CV, 2024 WL 3282544, at *5 n.5 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 3, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (rejecting appellant's argument in forcible detainer action that she was not required to pay supersedeas bond due to indigence); Morse v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 05-18-00999-CV, 2018 WL 4784585, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op. on motion to review supersedeas) ("Section 24.007 of the [Texas] [P]roperty [C]ode states that a judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within ten days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. . . . A defendant's indigence does not relieve him of the obligation to file a supersedeas bond.") (emphasis in original).
Appellant further argues that he has paid a "deposit in lieu of bond" because he paid a month's rent to prosecute his appeal of the judgment entered by the justice court to the county court. However, to the extent the justice court set an appeal bond to suspend its judgment pending appeal to the county court, and that appellant paid such bond, that bond does not suspend a judgment from a subsequent county court judgment. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.00511 ("In a residential eviction suit for nonpayment of rent, the justice court shall state in the court's judgment the amount of the appeal bond . . . "). An appeal from the judgment of a county court requires a separate appeal bond. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 ("A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.").
Because the appellate record does not reflect that appellant has paid the supersedeas bond set by the county court or made a deposit in lieu of a bond, appellant's emergency motion to reconsider is denied.
It is so ORDERED.