Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 18, 2015
Docket01-15-00663-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC (Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

No. 01-15-00663-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS -«^e^ *»!S**?* First District of Texas ^qv^0**^ Houston, TEXAS

Devon Wilmington c^* Appellant

vs.

Bay Area Utilities, LLC, et al.

Appellee

PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY

OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

After a non-jury trial, Bay Area Utilities, LLC. obtained a

judgment in the amount of $37,020.00, $14, 422.79 Attorney's

Fees; and the additional sum of $7,500 in the event Plaintiff is

successful in appeal to Texas Court of Appeals; and an

additional sum of $7,500 in the event of successful appeal to

Supreme Court against Devon Wilmington and All Occupants,

including Albert Reff in connection with a Forcible Detainer. 1 Before the court is the motion of Devon Wilmington et. al, to

stay execution of judgment pending appeal with a supersedeas

bond in accordance with Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Appellant, Devon Wilmington further petitions this Court

for a writ of supersedeas to stay the enforcement of the

judgment of Judge Wooldridge, visiting Judge, County Court 3,

dated July 27, 2015.

Appellant seeks a stay pending review by this Court of the trial

court's order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of

Appellee. If not stayed by this Court, the Appellant will suffer

irreparable harm and not be able to appeal this case. Appellant

will be deprived of due process of law. In support of this

petition. Appellant shows the following:

Introduction

July 27, 2015 Judge Wooldridge issued a written judgment

against Devon Wilmington and All Occupants, including Albert

Reff. Appellant instantly filed a notice of appeal to the trial

court and with First and Fourteenth court of appeals. Under

current law the maximum that can be requested for a bond is no

more than 50% of the net worth of Defendant. Defendant stated in

court and deposition that she has a negative net worth. On

August 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to proceed in Forma

Pauperis and affidavit of Indigency. Honorable Judge Linda Storey entered a judgment and order sustaining contest to

Pauper's Oath and set Supersedeas bond at $15,000 after

Plaintiff's filed a contest of the Defendant's Affidavit of

Indigence and response to motion to proceed in Pauperis Formis.

Defendant believes this is the true motivation of Plaintiffs in

their recent filing of Contest of Affidavit of Indigence and

response to Motion to proceed in forma Pauperis in THE CIVIL

COURT AT LAW NUMBER 3. Previously they filed contest to

affidavit of indigence so Defendant could not afford to appeal

because she could not afford the $4,000 minutes. The cost to

file and enforce the judgement is probably 20x more than the

$400 balance in Defendant's bank account. Satisfying the judgment

is obviously not the goal of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' sole goal is

to destroy Defendant. Defendant does not have adequate the funds

to post a bond of $15,000. Defendant has stated in her affidavit

of indigence, in deposition, in post-trial discovery that her

net worth is less than zero, she has part-time job and has about

$400 in cash. A writ of supersedeas would avoid this harm and

preserve the integrity of the Defendant's appeal. By contrast,

Plaintiffs face no irreparable harm if a stay is granted. If

Plaintiffs ultimately prevail on appeal, they will obtain the

relief ordered by this Court. The only harm they will suffer is

a delay in taking probably $400 from Defendant. Defendant has no

assets, works part-time and cares for a 2 year old son and 3 stated this in her response to post trial discovery requests

made by Plaintiffs^ Defendant had to spend all of her savings in

the defense of the Civil court case. Defendant seeks a stay and

writ of possession from this Court pursuant to Texas Civil

Practice & Remedies Code Section 52.006 and Rule 24 (a)(1)(A) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Reasons Why Writ Should issue

A Stay Is Necessary to Avoid Irreparable Harm and to

Protect the Appellant's Right to a Meaningful Appeal.

The purpose of a writ of supersedeas is "to preserve the status

quo pending the exercise of the appellate court's jurisdiction"

and "is issued only to hold the matter in abeyance pending

review." If this Court disagrees with the trial court, and

determines that Appellant did not defame or breach a contract,

allowing Appellee to take Appellant's only means of support and

all financial ability to appeal in advance of that decision

would deprive the Appellant of the benefit of its appeal. In

short, allowing Appellees to take all financial means of support

of Appellants before the appeal is resolved effectively

may render the appeal moot because Appellant will not be able to

afford to continue the appeal. Appellant believes this is the

4 true motivation of Appellees in their recent filing of judgment

in trial Court.

A writ of supersedeas would avoid this harm and preserve

the integrity of the Appellant's appeal.

By contrast, Appellants would face no irreparable harm if a stay

is granted. If Appellants ultimately prevail on appeal, they

will obtain the relief ordered by this Court. Defendant had to

spend all of her savings in the defense of the County Court

case.

Defendant Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits

The trial court erred as a matter of procedure in its

interpretation and application due to the foreclosure on the

lien which is not superior to Appellants right of possession,

Chapter 24, Section 24.002, Forcible Detainer (2). There is,

then, a reasonable likelihood that the Appellants will prevail

on appeal. In addition, as other courts have recognized, "split

in authority" or "difference of opinion" among courts,

demonstrating that "reasonable jurists can disagree" on the

question at issue, is sufficient to establish a "likelihood of

success on the merits."

A. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 52.006

As per TCPR Code Section 52.006 (b)(1) Notwithstanding any

other law or rule of court, when a judgment is for money, the

amount of security must not exceed the lesser of: (1) 50 percent

5 of the judgment debtor's net worth or (2) $25 million.

(Defendant's net worth is represented by exhibit affidavit of

networth.) (c) On a showing by the judgment debtor that the

judgment debtor is likely to suffer substantial economic harm is

required to post security in an amount required under Section

(a) or (b), the trial court shall lower the amount of the

security to an amount that will not cause the judgment debtor

substantial economic harm, (d) An appellate court may review the

amount of security as allowed under Rule 24/ Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure, except that when a judgment is for money,

the appellate court may not modify the amount of security to

exceed the amount allowed under this section. The Appeals Court

can modify the amount of security.

B. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 provides: Amount of

Bond, Deposit or Security (a) Type of judgment (1) For recovery

of money.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devon-wilmington-v-bay-area-utilities-llc-texapp-2015.