in the Estate of Joe Pat Gary, 07-16-00421-CV

Appellant Linda Bohannon Gary filed an Emergency Motion asking the appellate court to order the trial court to set type and amount of security for a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement of a turnover order pending appeal.
The trial court issued a turnover order on February 3; this Court initially entered a stay on February 9 pending further order.
The record shows Gary submitted two motions requesting the trial court set security, but those requests were not brought to the trial court’s attention (no ruling appears in the record).
At the hearing on the turnover motion, Gary argued she could not post a supersedeas bond before a final judgment was signed and asserted it was premature for the trial court to set bond terms.
The appellate court concluded Gary had invited the very action she now sought to challenge and failed to show the trial court refused or failed to rule because the matter had not been called to the trial court’s attention.
The appellate court denied Gary’s emergency motion without prejudice and lifted its prior stay of the trial court’s turnover order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set type/amount of security for a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement of its turnover order pending appeal	Gary: Trial court should have set bond security so enforcement would be suspended during appeal	Respondent/record: Requests were not brought to trial court’s attention; Gary argued at hearing it was premature to set bond	Denied — court will not find abuse where requests were not presented to the trial court and where appellant previously argued setting bond was premature (invited error); motion denied without prejudice and stay lifted

In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (trial court need not consider a motion not brought to its attention)
In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (movant must show matter was presented to trial court and that the court failed or refused to rule)
Kirkland v. Schaff, 391 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (probate context can have multiple appealable final judgments)
In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (order removing administrator can be appealable)
In re Estate of Washington, 262 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (same)
Geeslin v. McElhenney, 788 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990) (same)