Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin Pakenham

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 9, 2019·No. 01-19-00572-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin J. Pakenham

Appellate case number: 01-19-00572-CV

Trial court case number: 19-CCV-064653

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Carolyn R. Dawson, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final summary judgment order signed on July 31, 2019 in a forcible detainer proceeding. And, she has filed an emergency motion for stay of execution of writ of possession pending appeal. A judgment in a forcible detainer action may not be stayed pending appeal unless the appellant files, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the trial court. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; see Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006) (“[I]f a proper supersedeas bond is not filed, the judgment may be enforced, including issuance of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises.”); Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d 861, 865 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“If the supersedeas bond is not posted, then the writ will be executed . . . .”). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___August 9, 2019___

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin Pakenham, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin Pakenham (Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin Pakenham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Rudy Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
494 S.W.3d 861 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)