Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, 333 S.W.3d 255

Whitmire renewed a lease for Greenridge Place and failed to pay rent, leading to an initial judgment for possession and rent dollars plus fees.
Whitmire appealed; the appellate court affirmed; Whitmire remained in possession and unpaid rent accrued during the appeal.
The trial court increased the supersedeas bond multiple times to cover rent accrued during the pendency of the appeal, eventually to $25,000, with Whitmire's parents as sureties.
After the Texas Supreme Court denied review, Greenridge Place sought to amend the judgment to render the sureties liable up to the $25,000 bond amount.
The trial court ultimately entered a judgment of $25,000 against Whitmire and the sureties jointly and severally, with excess costs against Whitmire, based on affidavits itemizing rent and attorney’s fees incurred during the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended judgment and mandate were void for lack of plenary power	Whitmire contends courts lacked power to amend judgments to bind sureties.	Greenridge Place argues courts retain ministerial authority to amend judgments against sureties even after plenary power expires.	Courts had jurisdiction to amend; amendments against sureties were proper.
Whether Whitmire's payment mooted the controversy	Whitmire claims payment of the underlying judgment mooted the issues.	Greenridge Place asserts live dispute remained over rents accrued during the appeal that were not paid.	The controversy was not moot because rents accrued during the pendency of the appeal were unpaid.
Whether the sureties remain liable on the $25,000 supersedeas bond despite a later $35,000 cash deposit	Whitmire argues the cash deposit released the sureties from liability.	Greenridge Place contends the bond served its purpose to suspend execution and the sureties remain liable.	Sureties remain liable on the $25,000 bond; the bond accomplished its purpose of abating the writ of possession.
Whether the evidence supports the judgment against the sureties for $25,000	Greenridge Place supported loss of rent and fees with uncontroverted affidavits.	Whitmire challenges the sufficiency of evidence for rent and fees.	Evidence from Bloom and Rayos was legally and factually sufficient to support $25,000 against the sureties.

Cockburn v. Hightower, 52 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. 1932) (rendering against sureties after affirming judgment is ministerial)
Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990) (court may correct after plenary power expires)
Schliemann v. Garcia, 685 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984) (mandate enforcement involves ministerial acts)
Saudi v. Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (mandate enforcement and ministerial duties)
Carter Real Estate & Dev., Inc. v. Builder's Serv. Co., 718 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986) (insufficient bond may still abate execution; sustain surety liability)
Haun v. Steigleder, 868 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993) (surety liability persists despite technically invalid bond)
Muniz v. Vasquez, 797 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (proof of damages for delay of appeal requires post-judgment facts)
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (contours of mootness and live controversy in appellate context)
Marshall v. Houston Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (mootness when occupant relinquishes possession; live controversy lacking)