Respecuully
BARRErr IJAFI'I:--JFRAI'PII::R 1'l_!RNI~:R & ENGEL, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BDFTEII:: 00000002397453
EV_WritOfPossession.rpt (10/17/2014) I Ver-37 EXHIBIT 2 TIME: 08:3345 AM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: May 4,2015 P. O. BOX 149325 PAGE: 1 AUSTIN, TeXAS 78714·9325
C.1·CV.16.000869 FEDERAL NATIONAL VS L ACEVEDO PARTY: COURT/JUDGE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT LAW ##2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 01·29·2015 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 01·29·2015 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT ## AMOUNT _::'=--.::::::=';. ',=::' :'::':::::::'.':!'.="O: .•~':-=:.=:!::: :',,;:~=-_:.-::=.: ;:':::::::~':'~'=:'::':::::= :-::::: r- ;::;:;:-: . 01·29·2015 PL 1 ASM:CV JP APPEAL FILING $257.00
Create New Case and Assess/Walve • Assessment Event
01·29·2015 PL 1 ORD:CV CASH BOND ORDERED $500.00
01·29·2015 PL 1 OPN:CV JP APPEAL FILED
01·29·2015 PL 1 ISS:CV NTC OF APPEAL AND COSTS
01·29·2015 OF 1 ISS:CV MONEY ON DEPOSIT LTR
01·29·2016 PL 1 PMT:CV CASH BOND PAYMENT C 111621 $·500.00 Received Of: FEDERAL NATIONA Memo: TRAVIS CO JP 2
_._ .._--_._------_._._. __ ._._--_ -- _ - '"
02·04·2016 NTC:CV APPEAL & COST RETURNED
02·05·2016 ._--- PLD:CV LEneR __ ----- . TO CLERK . -_ _. - _.. .... _ _ - _ .
02·06·2016 PL 1 ASM:CV CIVIL FILING FEE $257.00 BARREn, DAFFIN
02·05·2015 PL 1 PMT:CV CIVIL FILING FEE C 111731 $·257.00 Received Of: BARREn, DAFFIN Memo:
-_.-._-_._------ 02·26·2016 PLD:CV ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
._--------. __ . - .. __ ... - -- ..._ ... -....... -.__ ..... ..__ .... - .. - ..- .. "
02·26·2015 NTC:CV FILING RECORDS & AFFID
._-__ - -----_._ .... "--- .. __ .. 02·26·2016 NTC:CV SEnlNG TIME: 06:33:46 AM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS DATE: May 4,2016 p, 0, BOX 149326 AUSTIN, TEXAS 76714·9326 PAGE: 2
C.1·CV.15·000888 FECERAI. NATIONAL vs I. ACEVEDO PARTY: COURT/JUDaE: CC2 COUNTY COURT AT I.AW #2 STATUS: DO DISPOSED FILING DATE: 01·29·2016 CASE TYPE: CJP CV J P APPEAL DATE CASE ENTERED: 01·29·2016 EVENT CATEGORY: PERIOD: TO DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT In 2&1.:;::- .. ;-$ a... aWiM A-ab ,....~~ltl;q~t:';,Ul'l' I' ( " ... ~ .. llf1,.....'II'·,;~,:r •• llf'lHlO\E">'·-;.V'
03·09·2016 PL 1 ASM:CV JP APPEAL FILING $·257,00
Oupllcate entry, requealed vcid by Michelle Bryant 3/9/2016 CB
03·2302015 PLD;CV FAA DOCKET CALL
03·23·2015 OF 1 PLO:CV ANSWER
03·23·2015 PLO:CV ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
03-30·2015 ---------------- EMS:CV JUDGE'S ACTION ..... ~-. - . _" CASE TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT: TBCIWOP PARTIES APPEARED BY AND THROUGH COUNSEl. ONLY, dl,/2PM SHORTDKT
03·31·2015 OF 1 PLD:CV PLEA TO JURISDICTION
04·02·2016 EMS:OV JUOGe'S ORDER
FINAL JUOGMENT AFTER NON·JURY TRiAL: dill))
04·03-2016 CT:CV STAFF ATTORNEY NOTES
OTHER: Emelled to counael for Plaintiff, Mr, Hopkin" Judgment in this matter and Instructing him to serve the Judgment on Mr, Minerve, JJ
04·06·2016 OSP:CV JUOGMENT WRIT OF POSS
04·06·2015 MSC:CV ORO TO DISe SENT ACCTNG
04·06·2016 OF 1 ISS:CV NOT OF JOG RULE 306 TIMe: 08:33:46 AM TRAVIS COUNTY, STATe Of! TeXAS OATe: M@y4,2015 P. 0, BOX 14932G AUSTIN, T~XA6 7Q714-9~211 PAOE, 3
Q·1·QV.1,.OOOIOt FeDeRAl. NATIONAl. VO I. Aceveoo PARTY: OOURl'INOOE: C02 COUNTY COURT AT I,.AW ~2 STATUS: 00 OIS~08SP FI~ING DATe: 01·as·a010 CASS TYPel: CJP CV J f) APPj;!AI, DATE CASE eNTeRED: 01·28·2010 EVENT CATEGORY: PIiRIOt?: TO
PI. 1 AeM:OV COpy pea CI.ERK MAKES $2.00 HOPKINS & WILLI
04·08·2010 PI.O:CV LETTER TO CLERK
04·08·2010 PI. 1 PMT:OV COPY FEe OLERK MAKeS P 26604 Rooolvod 01: HOPKINS & WILLI Momo: 04807797
04·08·2010 PI. 1 DSB:OV OASH BOND DISBURSEMENT $4'10,00
DISBUReeo '47G.OO OK 114770 PJlld 10Iho ordor 01:Foder.' Nilion.' Mort, Anoo O·I,OV·10·000889 Bond R.'und
04·09·2010 PLO:OV NOTIOE OF APPEAL ~RD OT
MSO:CV ReO FOR REPORTERS RECRD
04·01)·2015 PLO:CV LETTER TO OLERK
04·09·2010 PLP:OV NOTIOe OF APPEAL 3RD OT
NOTloe OF APPEAL
04·1Q.2010 MSO:CV ASSIGNMENT OF APPEAL
ASSIGNED TO: GUY D'ALESSIO
PLO:OV FILE COPY OF LETTER
04·17·2010 MOT:OV OTHER
MOTION TO OHALLENGE INSUFFICIENT BONO AND FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
04·20·20111 NTC:OV HeARING TIME: Oe:J~:4~ AM TRAVIS OOUNTY, STATe; OF' TEXAS OArR: MilY ii, a010 ~, 0, aox 14Qa26 AUSTIN, TSXM '7G'i'11\.1l~2ij FWJ15: 1\
C.1.eV·1O·000IOi FEOSRAL. NATIONAl. VB L A@eVC!Clo ~ARTY: OOURTfJUOGE: 002 CeUNiY COURT AT LAW tl2 STATUti: 00 tllfiFOSEP rl~ING DATE: 01·ge·a015 (lASt:! TYFEI: CJP OV J P APFlI!AL QATE CASt: I;NTEREO: 01·2e·~01l! eVfi!NT CATEGORY: PlaRIOr;l: TO
FlW:OV PAX DOCKeT OALL
OF 1 PL.O:OV OT APPISALS APPID INAIlIL
04·27·2016 PL 1 ASM:OV WRIT OF POSS OR SiClUES $6,00 PARRt:TT DAFFIN
FI. 1 ASM:CV SI:RVICIiS WRIT OF POSSIaSS $100,QO BARRETT OAFFIN
PLO:CV LETTER TO OLf!RK
PL 1 PMT:CV WRIT OF PO~S OR SEQUjiS $·MO Rfloolvlld Of: fJARReTT DAFFIN Memo: 00003&37
PI. 1 FMT:OV SERVICE WRIT OF POssess $·160,00 RocolVlld Of: BARRETT DAFFIN Momo: ooooaen
04·3Q·2010 OF 1 ISS:OV WRIT OF POSSESSION
CONGTA6LE II CAUSE NO. ----------------
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS THIRD DISTRICT AUSTIN
MOTION FOR REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT'S ORDER from CAUSE NO. C-I-CV-15-000869
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § IN THE COUNTY COURT ASSOCIATION A/KJ A FANNIE MAE, § Plaintiff, § AT LAW NO. 2 § v. § LENNY ACEVEDO ET AL § Defendant. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Lenny Acevedo files this Motion for Review of Trial Court's Order. In
support of his motion, Acevedo will show the following:
Acevedo was sued twice by Fannie Mae for forcible detainer. Acevedo cited
the two year statute of limitations as his defense. The judge in the justice COUlt
ruled in favor of Acevedo both times. In this instance, Fannie Mae appealed the
second judgment for a trial de novo to county COUlt.
The trial was held on March 30, 2015, and the judgment of the COUlt was
signed on April 2, 2015 and filed in the record on April 6, 20151• On April 9,
2015, seven days after notification of the judgment, Acevedo noticed the clerk of
1 Exhibit I - Judgment, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Motion for review Page 1 his intention to appeal'. In its order, the court had not set a supersedeas bond
amount, so Acevedo posted a $500 supersedeas surety bond3 at that time, in order
to supersede the execution of the judgment.
The judgment of the county court may not be stayed unless within 10 days
from the judgment the appellant files a supersedeas bond, and because the signed
judgment was not recorded until April 6, Acevedo did not have time to petition the
court to set a bond amount, so he filed a $500 supersedeas bond in order to stay
execution.
The bond was posted in the registry of the court and the writ was stayed.
The clerk did not contest the bond.
On April 24, 2015, Fannie Mae filed a motion to challenge insufficient bond
and for issuance of writ". The hearing for this motion was held on May 1,2015.
At the hearing, Judge Shepperd stated that he had not set a bond amount and
therefore, there was no bond in the record. Judge Shepperd reasoned that if he had
not set a bond amount, there could be no bond.
Judge Shepperd did not rule on the insufficiency of the bond, and ordered
that the writ should issue pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 24.
The hearing was set for 9:00 a.m., and a writ of possession was issued by the
court at 8:00 a.m .., hours before the judgment in the case. When Appellant
2 Exhibit 2 - Notice of Appeal, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 3 Exhibit 3 - Surety bond, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 4 Exhibit 4 - Motion to challenge insufficiency, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Motion for review Page 2 returned to his home after court, a 24 hour notice to vacate was posted to his front
door. The notice was posted at 8:50. This was before the hearing started.
ISSUES FOR REVIEW ISSUE 1
Did the COUlt rule on the motion before it?
ISSUE 2 If the trial court, in a trial for possession, did not set an amount of supersedeas bond, does Appellant have the right to post a supersedeas bond within ten days from judgment to stay execution of the judgment?
ISSUE 3
Whether, on May 1, 2015, the trial COUlt had jurisdiction to amend its judgment by setting a sufficient bond?
ISSUE 4
Whether a COUlt can issue process based on a judgment that has not yet been issued?
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A supersedeas bond is part of the right of appeal. The court, by not setting a
supersedeas bond amount, denies Appellant the right to stay the judgment of the
court as it pertains to execution of a writ.
"The supersedeas bond is part of the right of appeal and is only intended to
indemnify the judgment creditor from losses caused by delay of appeal. State v.
Motion for review Page 3 Watts, 197 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1946, writ refd) Muniz v. Vasquez,
797 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.-Houston, 1990).
The trial court is obligated to extend all rights of due process to all parties.
In order to achieve this in a forcible detainer appeal, the cOUl1must set an amount
for supersedeas bond in its judgment. To fail to set an amount, the cOUl1has
denied rights to which an appellant is entitled.
If the trial court does not set an amount for supersedeas bond in a hearing for
possession, it denies Appellant the right to supersede enforcement of the judgment.
The setting of the amount of bond in a suit for possession should be an automatic
inclusion in any judgment for possession.
""A law which practically takes away from either party to litigation the right
to a fair and impartial trial in the courts provided by the constitution for the
determination of a given controversy, denies a remedy by due course of law".
Dillingham v. Putnam, 109 Tex.1, 14 S.W.303 (Tex. 1890) The Dillingham cOUl1
went on to hold that a legislative act making the right of appeal depend on the
giving of a supersedeas bond, without reference to the appellant's ability to pay,
was unconstitutional. Id. 14 S.W. at 305.
In the absence of an amount for supersedeas bond, Appellant filed a $500
surety bond. Appellant had no idea as to what a properly sufficient bond would be,
but since time was of the essence, was able to find two sureties to sign a surety
Motion for review Page 4 bond in the amount of $500. Appellant also knew that if the bond was not
sufficient or defective, Fannie Mae had the right to petition the court for a higher
amount of bond. The $500 bond was filed and the court accepted the bond.
Appellant had a right to file a bond to stay execution. In the absence of an
amount set by the court, if he had not filed a bond, he would have waived his right.
At the hearing on the bond, the court did not determine that the bond was
defective or insufficient. Judge Shepperd stated that ten days had passed since his
judgment, and he therefore could not now set a bond amount.
The court erred when, after motion and argument that the bond was
insufficient, it did not determine that there was a bond, the bond was insufficient,
set a sufficient bond amount and allow time to cure the defect.
At the hearing on the Motion to challenge insufficient bond, Judge Shepperd
stated that he did not have jurisdiction to set a bond because it was more than ten
days after judgment. The judge erred, pursuant to the Texas Appellate Rules, the
court maintains plenary power to set a sufficient bond when the sufficiency of the
bond is challenged. Tex.R.App.P. 24.3(a)(1).
The trial court, even if its plenary powers had expired, maintains the
jurisdiction to amend its judgment. "Even after the trial court's plenary power
expires, the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to order the amount and type of
security and decide the sufficiency of the sureties." Tex.R.App.P. 24.3(a)(1); see
Motion for review Page 5 Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, 333 S.W.3d 255 at 260 (Tex.App-
Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dism'd); In re MVG., 285 S.W3d 573, 575
(Tex.App.-Waco 2009)(order abating appeal) (per curium)("And if the judgment
is superseded, the trial court nevertheless retains 'continuing jurisdiction' to
evaluate the adequacy of the security required to supersede the judgment."_ Miller
v. Kennedy & Mishew, Prj'l Corp., 80 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex.App.-F011 Worth
2002, no pet. )(holding that trial court possesses authority after the expiration of its
plenary power to review the sufficiency of sureties on a supersedeas bond). Thus,
if the bond in the present case was a supersedeas bond, the trial court had
continuing jurisdiction to review the amount of the bond and the sufficiency of the
sureties. See Tex.R.App.P. 24.3(a)(1). Cox v. Simmonds, Tex.App.-Corpus
Christi 2015).
In the instant case, the court was noticed by motion that the supersedeas
bond was insufficient. The motion recognizes the fact that there is a supersedeas
bond filed, notwithstanding an insufficient amount. The court erred when it ruled
that because the court had not set the supersedeas bond amount, there was no bond.
Rather, the court was obligated to rule on the insufficiency, amend his judgment,
set a sufficient bond amount and allow Acevedo time to cure his defect.
To determine that there was no bond is in direct contravention to the
evidence in the record that a bond was filed, and constitutes judicial error.
Motion for review Page 6 The court had an obligation, if there was a complaint of insufficiency, to set
the amount sufficient to supersede execution of a writ and allow Appellant time to
cure by posting a sufficient supersedeas bond.
When the bond was challenged on the grounds of insufficiency, the court is
to determine 1) whether the bond was insufficient, 2) what amount of bond would
be sufficient, and 3) allow five days to cure the defective bond. Ashley Furniture
Industries Inc, v. Law Office of David Pierce, 311 S.W.3d 595, (Tex.App.-EI
Paso, 2010).
When the trial court is called upon to review the sufficiency of the sureties
on a supersedeas bond, that review is conducted de novo. The trial court is to
decide the sufficiency of the sureties or the insufficiency of the bond. The court
must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the sufficiency of the amount and
type of security and the sufficiency of the sureties. Lamar County Elec. Co-op.
Ass'n, 51 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied)(recognizing
trial court may determine sufficiency of sureties on supersedeas bond).
In this case, the court did not determine the sufficiency of the bond. Rather,
it determined there was no bond and therefore a writ could issue. Appellant is not
able to provide a copy of the order issued on May 1, 2015, as it is not yet in the
record of the court.
Motion for review Page 7 If the bond was defective, as it appears it may have been, the court must then
determine the sufficient amount of supersedeas bond and enter an order giving
Acevedo twenty-one days to file an amended supersedeas bond. Miller v. Kennedy
& Minshew, 80 S.W3d 161 (Tex.App-Fort WOlih, 2002).
"-concluding supersedeas bond was insufficient to protect judgment
creditors and citing Rule 24.1 (e), holding "the trial court is required to order the
specific action it deems necessary to adequately protect the judgment creditor."
Huff Energy Fund, LP v. Longview Energy Company, No. 04-12-00630-CY,
(Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2014).
"The county court therefore had the authority to modify the amount of the
supersedeas bond after the expiration of its plenary power." Whitmire v.
Greenridge Place Apartments, No. 01-06-00963-CY (Tex.App.-Houston [1 st
District], 2007).
SUMMARY
Acevedo had a right to post a surety bond even though the court had not
included an amount for supersedeas in its original judgment.
When a court has a motion before it, the court must rule on that motion and
no other. In the case of a motion for insufficient bond, the matter is handled de
novo. At that point, the court looks only to the motion before it and determines the
issue before it. That was not done in this case.
Motion for review Page 8 The motion for insufficient bond, which was before the court, asks that
because the Defendant had failed to post an appropriate bond in accordance with
Tex.R.Civ.P. 24, a writ should issue. This is a defect in the pleadings and a
judicial impossibility to grant a writ pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 24.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 24 is Duty of Clerk. Tex.R.App.P.24 is suspension of
enforcement of judgment pending appeal in civil cases. When challenged with the
insufficiency of a bond, the court must rule on that insufficiency and determine
what the sufficient amount to protect the creditor while on appeal is, and allow the
time to cure the defect.
The issue before the court was not that no bond was posted and therefore,
judgement could not be stayed. The motion was for insufficiency of the bond.
The COUlt erred in not determining the matter before it, which was: was the
bond insufficient? If it is determined that the bond is insufficient, the COUlt must
set a sufficient amount, and give the party time to post a sufficient bond.
The court erred by not ruling on the issue before it and allowing Acevedo
time to cure any defect.
The writ was issued by the clerk of the court at 8:00 a.m. April 30, 2015 and
posted at 8:50 a.m. on May 1, 2015, the day of the hearing. The judgment in the
Motion for review Page 9 hearing wasn't issued until close to 10:00 a.m ..5 Until the order of the court was
issued, the $500 supersedeas bond had not been determined to be insufficient and
therefore superseded the execution of a writ. This is impropriety at the very least.
Lenny Acevedo prays that this COUlt consider the facts and the law and
reverse the judgment of the COUltand render this case for rehearing to set a
sufficient supersedeas bond amount with time to cure.
/s/ James Minerve James Minerve State Bar No. 24008692 115 Saddle Blanket Trail Buda, Texas 78610 (210) 336-5867 (888) 230-6397 (Fax) Attorney for Lenny Acevedo
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Due to the exigency of the time limitations on filing this motion, during the week end, I was unable to contact Mark Hopkins to confer as to his consent or disagreement about filing this motion.
/s/ James Minerve
5 There is no order in the record of the as of May 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., and parties were not given a copy of the order.
Motion for review Page 10 A true and correct copy of the attached Motion for Review as was sent by U. S. Postal service on May 4, 2015 to:
HOPKINS & WILLIAMS Mark D. Hopkins 12117 Bee Caves Road, Suite 260 Austin, Texas 78738
lsi James Minerve
Motion for review Page 11 EXHIBIT 1 CAUSE NO. C~1-CV-15·000869
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § ASSOCIATION AJIKJA FANNIE MAE, § Plaintiff, § § V. § § LENNY ACEVEDO AND ALL § OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1108 § FOX SPARROW COVE, § PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS 78660 § § Defendant(s). §
occupants of 1108 Fox Sparrow Cove, Pfl
-. =0 iii~ - fiEi!S~ .... o< .!.. li!ib iIi~ co - •
CK C, KUEMPEL TRACT PHASE 3, SECTION FIVE, AN - TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT L
a~'-4U'RD IN VOLUME 2002, PAGE 318, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff have and recover from Defendants
reasonable attorney's fees at the trial court level in the amount of $1,000.00, which may be
collected from the bond posted by defendant, if any, payable immediately by the Clerk of the
Court upon presentation of this order, together with reasonable attorney's fees if the case is
JUOGMBNT H609·15/ Acevedo Page 1
------------------------------------_. unsuccessfully appealed to the Courts of Appeal in the amount of $2,000.00, reasonable
attorney's fees if the case is unsuccessfully appealed on writ of error to the Supreme Court of
Texas in the amount of $3,500.00, and if writ is granted by the Supreme Court but the appeal is
unsuccessful, reasonable attorney fees in the amount 0£$2,500.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff recover from the D~S) co~~t court, for which let execution issue. /" ~
ALL RELIEF NOT EXPRESSLY ~~NTED HEREIN IS ~~~.
SIGNEDthiS~YOf ~J
SUBMITTED BY:
IUDGMBNT H609·15/ Acevedo Page 2 EXHIBIT 2 Filed: 4/9/201510:45:57 PM Dana DeBeauvoir Travis County Clerk CAUSE NO. C-I-CV-1S-000869 C-1-CV-15-000869 Adrianna Perez FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § IN THE COUNTY COURT ASSOCIATON AIKIA FANNIE MAE § Plaintiff § § v. § § AT LAW NO. 2 LENNY ACEVEDO and ALL § OCCUPANTS OF 1108 FOX SPARROW § COVE, PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS 78660 § Defendants. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Lenny Acevedo notices this Court of his Notice of Appeal to the 3rd Court of Appeals,
from the Judgment issued on April 2, entered in the clerk's record on Apri16, 2015. I I Respectfully submitted,
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Notice of Appeal was sent on AprU9, 2015 by U. S. Postal Service to:
Mark D. Hopkins HOPKINS & WILLIAMS, PLLC 12117 Bee Caves Rd., Suite 260 Austin, Texas 78738 EXHIBIT 3 Filed: 4/9/201510:45:57 PM Dana DeBeauvoir Travis County Clerk CAUSE NO. C-I-CV-lS-000869 C-1-CV -15-000869 Adrianna Perez FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § IN THE COUNTY COURT ASSOCIATION AlKJA FANNIE MAE § Plaintiff § § v. § § AT LAW NO. 2 LENNY ACEVEDO and ALL § OCCUPANTS OF 1108 FOX SPARROW § COVE, PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS 78660 § De~ndantL § TRA VIS COUNTY, TEXAS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT,
THAT, WHEREAS, judgment was rendered on the 2ndt day of April, 2015, in the . .
County Court of Law #2 of Travis County and State of Texas, in favor of Federal
National Mortgage Association and against Lenny Acevedo and all other
Occupants in Cause No. C-I-CV-lS-000869 for possession, from which judgment the
said, Lenny Acevedo desires to appeal to the 3rd Court of Appeals at Austin,
Texas.
NOW THEREFORE; I, the said appellant Lenny Acevedo, as principal, and
.6iJ~",X" f?c.Jy and Cu,'I/lOna &Ny4 as Sureties, acknowledge ourselves bound to
pay to the Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association, the sum of $500.00,
conditioned. that said appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and shall pay
off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against him on said appeal.
Witness our hands this q rh day of April 9, 2015
~k.(kj Le Acevedo Principal Surety
The State of Texas } }SS County of Travis }
AFFIDA VIT OF SURETY
['~I ' do swear that I am worth, in my own right, at least the sum of
$500.00, after deducting from my property all that which is exempt by the
Constitution and Laws of the State from forced sale, and after the payment of all
my debts, and after satisfying all encumbrances upon my property which are
known to me; that I reside in -:rrA.LI', ~ County and have property in this State
liable to execution worth said amount or more.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this rzt\-l. day of April_1, 2015 KevjN 81ERWIRlH Not~/V PubP~, Stdle 01 Texos My com, miSSIon Elrp'!itt . Oc 01)" 21.201'7 1
otary Public of the State of Texas The State of Texas } }SS County of Travis }
I,C;:,'llgw" ~L...do swear that I am worth, in my own right, at least the sum of
$500.00, after deducting from my property all that which is exempt by the
Constitution and Laws of the State from forced sale, and after the payment of all
my debts, and after satisfying all encumbrances upon my property which are
known to me; that I am a property owner in 7f"?AVI :..S County and have
property in this State liable to execution worth said amount or more,
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this ~ fk day of April t,2015, kEVIN .'f~WIRtH Noto/y PubllQ, 81QI. 01 Te)(o• .... "" ...... ,'.. MV CommJUIQh bpIJe, Oof~b.r21, 20U Notary Public of the State of Texas
I hereby approve the foregoing Bond, this _ day of April, 2015
County Clerk ACOT NOI "-9225
PAl 1,80 AUSTIN TX 000000006668 TX48036 Mar 31 • 1:29pm ~~':W.~~Sut:Ob'a'k1fQty:2rtQO'~~'~"J'H~li' ~I~..f ....·~#~,., ...··~·,.~\',A\~'\iiI· ,.' I}.-, ,',.. J
MAR31 ATM TXN FEB 1. 50 11775.95 ... MAR._3" • JATH"lfVl'HDAAWAIf~ ....,..~~· ',W' ~,;t;; ".-; ,,··~i.,~~;,@, '~02.\.00 '\< ( .... 11573;96 PAl ISO AUSTIN TX ~Ai~~"'.~'&1~OOOOOO(j06f)69~I1'X48036 'IHar'31 '>!iH{i·29t>m~.· ~~~~"'I*),,*,~f~ "~'.\ll'i!,fio<'!" Surcharge 2.00 1'l4ARal%9'ATM~;~pa.B.~"'l'I·,'f. t.'.,~.. ,.".' ,.,·v'~'-\' .:~ '~t;; • 1'1,572-146 MARlO' DEBIT PURCHASE 11563.80 '~~f!If"t',· iXAOOf03·59.'728tO~·WPPLUGBRVltJLE" TXI':I '~'H~ • ~}Nd", ,n!, " • 508900029974 12345678 Mar 30 ''''MAR~l{(1IDBBllAi>tIRcntASlk~I.iJ.''''·Y;'~ J-i;lr " •.~ ::. I' .'. 4;t;." 11" .." 321.74 1-1242.06 VZWRLSS.IVR VN 800-922-0204 NJ !!!:".~"l4"'::V~" 09·00002-89'15..11234.S6?8~Mari>31'ii· .: . 1'" ,J",... ~. MARl 1 CHARGE PEB - PAPBR STATEMENT FBE 2.25 1123~.. ;&1, ~~ .."'!I,~. ~~ 'p.! ,.11' .J:j. •• ~', ~'A,. v .1,,1· .... e.-,~ r '!"'iJ"-t j \! ·~'!""""»t;c,:'" t'" \ ....... J.'.,...,.h .. •
Cleated Share Draft Rec~p .~ '1" :'f.\~'t~Dt'i(f,~...-·c'·Oate;l • ~ .l>'''·tAII\b{h'at; "'IDrtl6ti"'# "~D.a~~",¢i, ~W~AiI\i5unt;. Di"iifb' It <'Dat.e Atnourfb
. ,).l'HJun1;i.l,,~ " ,!98.OA>;'U'l'6ji.·· . ,MARt6 >':I» yil~r9.0 '00 /,:,1-194 i'~.'lli1l~1lLd'1:S9::f • ,IMAR23 78.'84 1160 MAR95 155.12 *1167 MAR18 505.00 1195 MAR2l jOOO.OO ~N"'...·.~~~-;U:61~· "'HARl2·"· i""j'nOfOOt .·1'1'681>'" oiMARt8'l~':Y' 600 00, ·1'196 'AAR:ro, 1600~00 -1163 MAR13 100.65 *1193 MAR18 45.00 ~197 MARlO ' .. ' 1900.00
1-------------------------------------------------------------------1 -e-,.. I",~." jll', '.' 'l t ..., _ I ~.-l I Total ·fot' I Total I I I this period I year-to-date I ~'~ ..'; 1.,. ........... ~,.~ ~·~;~"r~-';' Ji:l~':':'" _ .. ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~. -.- ~ -I .... 41,. ':"-.~'""'~" ,!~,!,~_-c.; I ...:..··""".. " .. ~ .. ,.~ .. :.~.I ITotal OVerdraft Fees 1 0.001 0,001 V,;l,.".)~It,!t" 1.I1'Ot:a1. 1!tetUj'ne'd(Itelil"PetJ'S':,\\ ; • -•..•.•• 1 ,'," ,',.0 00 I .O~00 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------1 • I
-----------------------SUMMARy----------------------- M~·~'1I-"~ .....,...4' '~t ~ ~""'.!~,r.,... r- ,,~,. • :'.". ":~'. '. - j
Previous Balance as of 01 MAR 15 .
Total of 12 Share Drafts for . 8422,65 - Total of, 1~0 Oth'E!J;" Debits fo): . 9461.54 - Total of 18 Deposits for"., ,.,. 1493.50 + ,., Total o'f 2 other 'Cri!dits"for •........ 2103.12'0+
Bnding Balance ail of II MAR 15 •.•..... 11239,.81
Continued dn page ·12
~ ~QUAl. HOIISIHG l.!SLEND8R Fed~'ly losu.ed by NeVil. EXHIBIT 4 tiMILY YURAS HOPKINS &. WILLIAMS ImllyO"opkln,wlllloml.QQm M.~.e.
April 17, 201S
Via reg,dar U.S. mall and CMRRRN 70121640000171146J19 LCWlY Acevedo and All Other Occupants 1108 Fox SpfUTOW cove Pflugerville, Texas 78660
RB: CAUSE NO. C·l·CV·15·000869i Federal National Mortgage Association v, unny Acevedo and all Occupants of J 108 Fox Sparrow Cove, Pflugerville, TX 78660, In the County Court at Law No.2, Travis County, Te~as
H609·15
Dear Mr. Acevedo:
Please find enclosed the Motion 10 Challenge Insufflciew Bond tmd for /SSU(l(fceof Writ filed In the above- referenced ceuse on April 17,2015.
~ry ~. Yuraa, Legal Assistant to HOPKINS & WILI.IAMS, PLLC
t 512·60Q·<\320 www.hQpkln,wllll.m,,~om f 512:6QO.4326 12117 BII' Cavua Road, Sulto 260, A...,tlo, TX 7G738 CAUSE NO. C-I-CV-15-000869
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE § IN THE COUNTY COURT ASSOCIATION AJIKJA FANNIE MAE, § Plaintiff, § § V. § AT LAW NO. 2 § LENNY ACEVEDO AND ALL § OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1108 § FOX SPARROW COVE, § PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS 78660 § § Defendant(s}. . § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO CHALLENGE INSUFFICIENT BOND AND FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
COMES NOW, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AlKJA
FANNIE MAE, Plaintiff, and files this Motion to Challenge Insufficient Bond and For Issuance
of Writ. Fannie Mae would respectfully request that the court Issue a Writ for Possession in this
cause at this time due to Appellee's failure to file sufficient bond.
I. FACTS
1. Defendant Appeals this matter to the 3rd Court of Appeals after Judgment was
awarded for possession of the property to Plaintiff on Apri12, 2015.
2. Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal on April 9th, 20] 5 and attached thereto a
proposed surety bond signed by himself, Suzanne Rady, and Guillermo Rangel.
The amount assured by all three parties was $500.00.
II. ARGUMENT
3. A judgment debtor may suspend or supersede execution of a judgment while the
debtor pursues a review by filing with the trial court clerk a good and sufficient
Motlon to Challenge InsuffiCient Bond H609-1S Acevedo PAGe 1
APR 2' bond. TEX R. APP. P. 24.1(a)(2)-(3). When a judgment involves an interest in
real property, the amount of the supersedeas bond or deposit must be "the value of
the property interest's rent or revenue during the pendency of the appea1. TEX. R.
APP. P. 24.2(a)(2)(A); Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, 333 S.W>3d
255, 260 (Tex. App.e-Houstonl l" Dist.] 2010, pet. dism'd) Furthermore, the
surety on a bond or the deposit made in lieu of a bond is subject to liability "for
all damages and costs that may be awarded against the debtor----up to the amount
of the bond, deposit, or security," if "the judgment is for the recovery of an
interest in real or personal property, and the debtor does not pay the creditor the
value of the property interest's rent or revenue during the pendency of the
appea1." TEX R. APP. P. 24.1(d)(3). Because appeals can take longer than
expected, the County court has autnority to mo(lizy tfie amount of the supersedeas
bond even after then expimtion of it's plenary power. (fEX R. APP. P. 24.3(a)
4. In this matter $500.00 is a wholly insufficient supersedeas bond amount for the
award of the possession of the property located at 1108 Fox Sparrow Cove,
Pflugerville.
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
5. Because Defendant has failed to post an apQ!:QPriateDonain accordance with
exas Rule of Civil Proceoure 24, laintiff asks that the court issue a writ for
possession at this time in accordance with the judgment signed on April 2, 2015.
Motion to Challenge Insufficient Bond H609-1S Acevedo PAGE 2 APR 24 Respectfully Submitted,
By: Mark D. Hopkin State Bar No. 00 93915 Brantley Boyett State Bar. No. 24051592 12111 Bee Caves Rd., Suite 260 Austin, Texas 78738 (512) 600-4320 (512) 600-4326 Fax mark@hopkinswilliams.com ATTORNEY FOR FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAOE ASSOCIATION
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent on this the l1" ~y of April 2015 to all parties of record via the method indicated as follows:
Via,egula, u.s. mail and CMRRR# 70121640000171146319 Lenny Acevedo and All Other Occupants 1108 Fox Sparrow Cove Pflugerville, Texas 78660
PRo SE DEFENDANT
MOl/on 10 Challenge IMl/Jlclent Bond H609-15 Acevedo PAGE 3
APR 24