NUMBER 13-13-00581-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
MARY FOWLER, Appellant,
v.
GUS MONTIS, ARGIRO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
of Nueces County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
Order Per Curiam
On February 10, 2014, we abated to the county court the issue regarding the
sufficiency of appellant’s personal surety bond, which named this Court as the payment
creditor. The county court conducted a hearing to determine whether the writ of
possession was stayed, whether appellant timely and sufficiently filed a supersedeas
bond, and the county court’s jurisdiction to modify the supersedeas bond. Pursuant to
this Court’s abatement order, the county court provided findings of fact and conclusions
of law. Upon reviewing the abatement hearing record and the county court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law, we reinstate this appeal. We agree with the county court’s
conclusion of law that appellant’s personal surety bond was insufficient because it was
payable to this Court rather than appellees, the judgment creditor. See TEX. R. APP. P.
24.1(b)(1)(B) (“A bond must be payable to the judgment creditor.”). Thus, the county
court’s judgment may be enforced, “including issuance of a writ of possession evicting
the tenant from the premises.” Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198
S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006); see TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West, Westlaw
through 2013 3d C.S.) (“A judgment of the county court in an eviction suit may not under
any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of signing the
judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”).
There is no stay on the writ of possession.
Appellant’s failure to file a proper supersedeas bond precludes a stay of the writ of
possession, but it does not divest appellant of her right to appeal. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d
at 786–87.
In this case, the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been filed.
Appellant has neither filed her brief nor filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief.
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to either file her brief within twenty-one days from the
date of this order or file an appropriate motion for extension of time to file the brief that is
in compliance with the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5, 38.6. The failure to
2
timely file the brief or to comply with this directive or other Court order may result in the
dismissal of this appeal. See id. R. 38.8, 42.3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
22nd day of July, 2014.
3