Opinion
No. 05-17-00339-CV
04-27-2017
GARY SULLIVAN AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS OF 5005 COUNTY LANE, SHERMAN, TEXAS 75092, Appellant v. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2016-2-122CV
ORDER
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Boatright
Before the Court is appellant's April 27, 2017 Revised Emergency Motion to Dissolve Writ of Possession, and to Determine the Amount of Bond, Deposit or Security. Appellant has appealed a January 3, 2017 final judgment of possession in which the trial court awarded appellee judgment of possession of certain property. The trial court also entered an order setting supersedeas bond, setting the bond at $1,230.00 per month, due the fifteenth of each month, and stating that a writ of possession may issue immediately if a bond payment is not received within three days of the due date. Appellant asks this Court to "vacate, recall, or abate" a writ of possession purportedly issued. Appellant also asks the Court to treat payments purportedly paid into the registry as sufficient bond to supersede the judgment or, alternatively, to reduce the amount and type of bond, deposit, or security.
Under the Texas Property Code, a judgment of a county court in a forcible detainer suit 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. TEX. PROP. CODE. § 24.007. The record does not show that appellant posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,230.00 as required by section 24.007. Accordingly, we DENY appellant's request for vacatur, recall, or abatement of the writ of possession.
Similarly, the record includes insufficient evidence from which this Court can review the trial court's order setting supersedeas bond or the amount of the bond. This Court may review the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount of security. TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(1). A trial judge is given broad discretion in determining the amount and type of security required. Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew, P.C., 80 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). We, therefore, review the trial court's ruling under the abuse of discretion standard. EnviroPower, L.L.C. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 265 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Finkelstein, 905 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, pet. dism'd). A trial court abuses its discretion when it renders an arbitrary and unreasonable decision lacking support in the facts or circumstances of the case, or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. Samlowski, M.D. v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404, 410 (Tex. 2011).
Although appellant provided this Court with a declaration of his income and living expenses, the record does not show whether that information was before the trial court and considered by it when setting the amount of the bond. The trial court's on-line docket sheet shows that the trial court entered an order on April 27, 2017 on a motion to dissolve the writ of possession. Relator has not provided this Court with copies of the motion to dissolve the writ of possession, the order denying that motion, or a hearing transcript. Under this record, we cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting the bond at $1,230.00 per month. Accordingly, we DENY appellant's request that we determine and reduce the amount of bond, deposit, or security.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE