Mary Decker v. Clifford Homes, LLC
03-15-00393-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 2, 2015Background
- Mary Decker purchased and fully paid for her home at 1607 Main Street; the mortgage servicer foreclosed and Clifford Homes, LLC bought the property at a foreclosure sale on August 5, 2014.
- Clifford Homes sued for forcible detainer in justice court; the justice court dismissed the forcible detainer and set a $1,500 bond, which Clifford Homes paid and then appealed to Williamson County Court at Law No. 4.
- On June 23, 2015 the county court (Judge Pennington) granted plaintiff Clifford Homes’s traditional motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment for possession, but did not set a supersedeas bond at the hearing or in the judgment.
- Decker filed a notice of appeal and a motion to set bond on June 25, 2015; she requested the county court set the bond within the ten-day statutory window to suspend enforcement of a forcible-detainer judgment pending appeal (Tex. Prop. Code §24.007(a)).
- County court staff directed the parties to submit written argument and proposed orders by July 7, 2015 — after the 10-day deadline (accounting for holiday/weekend) — leaving Decker with no set bond and facing imminent loss of possession and a writ of possession.
- Relator filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling the county court to set a supersedeas bond (and lowering it if necessary) and to stay issuance of the writ of possession pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clifford Homes) | Defendant's Argument (Decker) | Held / Relief Sought |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to set a supersedeas bond within 10 days after final judgment in a forcible-detainer case | Court permissibly exercises discretion over bond amount/terms; no bond required in writing at time of judgment (implied) | County court’s refusal to set bond within statutory 10-day window deprived Decker of any realistic opportunity to supersede; abuse of discretion | Relator seeks mandamus to compel court to set bond and to stay writ; proceeding was pending at time of filing (outcome not in record) |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate because there is no adequate remedy by appeal | Trial court errors should be reviewed on appeal | Forcible-detainer appeals can become moot if possession is lost; lack of bond forecloses effective appellate relief — mandamus available | Relator argues extraordinary relief (mandamus) is warranted; petition requests immediate relief pending appeal |
| Proper amount/type of supersedeas/security where judgment awards possession only and defendant's net worth is negative | Plaintiff resists a nominal or minimal bond; asserts written submissions suffice for bond determination | Decker requests a nominal bond ($500) or bond limited by net-worth cap under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §52.006 and related rules; provided affidavit showing negative net worth | Relator asks court to set a small bond (or zero under net-worth cap); seeks mandamus to order bond-setting or lowering if necessary |
| Whether appellate court can stay a county-court writ absent a supersedeas bond | Stay authority is premised on satisfactory supersedeas bond per statute | If county court refuses to set bond, appellate stay is unavailable and appeal becomes effectively moot | Relator seeks emergency stay of writ of possession and mandamus to preserve appellate jurisdiction; outcome pending |
Key Cases Cited
- CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (mandamus is extraordinary relief to correct clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (standards for mandamus: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal)
- Marshall v. Housing Auth., 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (forcible-detainer appeals are moot unless appellant retains or demonstrates a meritorious claim to current possession)
- Isern v. Ninth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. 1996) (mandamus can be used to require trial court to specify or lower supersedeas bond)
- Shook v. Walden, 304 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (section 52.006 bond calculation framework and net-worth cap principles)
- G.M. Houser, Inc. v. Rodgers, 204 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (trial-court security for supersedeas adjusted based on negative net worth)