NUMBER 13-21-00113-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
YISEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,
v.
RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ &
WIFE NINFA RODRIGUEZ, Appellees.
On appeal from the 206th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
Order Per Curiam
This is an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction in a trespass to try title
case. The order on appeal, dated April 13, 2021, provides in relevant part that appellant
Yisel Rodriguez and her family must vacate the subject property within forty-five days.
Appellant has filed a “Verified Motion for Emergency Relief” in which she asks this Court
to stay the trial court’s April 13, 2021 order pending resolution of the appeal. She argues
that the trial court refused to hear testimony and evidence at the temporary injunction
hearing and that, without a stay, she and her family will be irreparably harmed as they will
become homeless if they are forced to vacate the property.
Pursuant to our request, appellees filed a response to appellant’s motion. In their
response, appellees note that the April 13, 2021 order also directs appellees to vacate
the subject property.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 provides:
When an appeal from an interlocutory order is perfected, the appellate court
may make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights
until disposition of the appeal and may require appropriate security. But the
appellate court must not suspend the trial court’s order if the appellant’s
rights would be adequately protected by supersedeas or another order
made under Rule 24.
TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. Appellant’s motion does not address whether supersedeas or
another order made under Rule 24 would be adequate to protect her rights until
disposition of the appeal. In this regard, we note that Rule 24 explicitly contemplates that
enforcement of an order for the recovery of real property may be suspended by the filing
of a supersedeas bond or deposit in lieu thereof. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(f), 24.2(a)(2).
Moreover, while an interlocutory appeal is pending, the trial court retains jurisdiction and
may make further orders as authorized by statute. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.5. In light of the
above, we cannot conclude that supersedeas or another order made under Rule 24 would
be inadequate to preserve appellant’s rights.
Having reviewed appellant’s motion, appellees’ response, and the record, we
conclude appellant has not shown herself entitled to the emergency relief sought.
2
Accordingly, appellant’s “Verified Motion for Emergency Relief” is DENIED. The appeal
will proceed in accordance with the briefing schedule for accelerated appeals. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 38.6. Nothing herein shall be construed as restricting appellant’s right to seek
suspension of enforcement of the subject order according to Rule 24.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the
7th day of May, 2021.
3