Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Park at Leyton obtained a judgment awarding it possession of premises in a forcible-detainer suit against Clarence Davis. The Harris County trial court set a $9,700 supersedeas bond and provided that a writ of possession could issue unless Davis posted the bond within 10 days after the July 9, 2026 judgment. The record did not indicate that Davis posted the bond by that deadline.
Davis filed an emergency motion asking the First Court of Appeals to reduce the bond to a reasonable or nominal amount because of his financial circumstances. The court construed the filing as a motion to review the supersedeas ruling under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4. The remainder of Davis’s motion appeared to challenge the merits of the underlying judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Davis’s motion, holding that he had not established that the trial court abused its discretion by setting the bond at $9,700. Under Texas Property Code section 24.007, an eviction judgment may not be stayed pending appeal unless the appellant files, within 10 days after the judgment is signed, a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the trial court. In determining that amount, the trial court must consider rent likely to accrue during the appeal, possible damages from a stay, and other appropriate amounts.
Davis supplied no evidence showing that the bond was unreasonable in light of those considerations and identified no changed conditions. The record showed that the trial court had information about the rent, Davis’s finances, and his efforts to obtain financial assistance. His statement of inability to afford court costs did not excuse the supersedeas requirement or establish that the amount was excessive.
Key Takeaways
- Indigence does not relieve an appellant from posting a supersedeas bond to stay enforcement of a Texas eviction judgment pending appeal.
- A party seeking reduction of an eviction-appeal bond must present evidence showing that the amount is unreasonable under the statutory factors.
- A statement of inability to afford court costs, standing alone, does not establish that a supersedeas ruling is excessive or an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appeal does not automatically prevent enforcement of an eviction judgment. Unless the required bond is timely posted, the prevailing landlord retains the right to seek execution of the judgment while the appeal proceeds.
It also illustrates the evidentiary burden on tenants seeking appellate review of a supersedeas amount: financial hardship alone is insufficient without proof addressing anticipated rent, potential damages, or other facts demonstrating that the trial court’s calculation was unreasonable.