Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 6, 2015·No. 03-15-00215-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-15-00215-CV 5182525 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/6/2015 4:45:08 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-15-00215-CV

FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/6/2015 4:45:08 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk LENNY ACEVEDO

Appellant,

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appellee.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number Two of Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. CC-1-CV- 15-000869, Honorable Eric Shepperd, Presiding

RESPONSE OF FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION TO “PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”

Mark D. Hopkins Texas State Bar No. 00793975 HOPKINS & WILLIAMS, PLLC 12117 Bee Caves Rd., Suite 260 Austin, Texas 78738 (512) 600-4320 – Telephone (512) 600-4326 – Facsimile mark@hopkinswilliams.com shelley@hopkinswilliams.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE May 6, 2015

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Procedural History of Eviction Proceedings. This is an appeal by Lenny

Acevedo (“Appellant” or “Acevedo”) from a final judgment entered by the County

Court at Law Number Two in Travis County, Texas, granting Federal National

Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae” or "Appellee") immediate possession of

property located at 1108 Fox Sparrow Cove, Pflugerville, Texas 78660 (the

"Property")( Appendix “A”).1 The Judgment was rendered on April 2, 2015.

Appellant failed to request that the trial court set a bond. Appellant instead filed a

Notice of Appeal on April 9, 2015 (Appendix “C”), a surety bond for five hundred

dollars (Appendix “D”), and requested both the trial court clerk and reporter

prepare their respective records without cost (despite having filed no timely

Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs). (Appendix “E” – correspondence to the clerk

and court reporter). Fannie Mae is not opposed to the issuance of an appropriate

bond in this case; Fannie Mae is only opposed to Appellant’s litigious

gamesmanship used to create delay just as was done within the prior district court

litigation and appeal involving the Property. Appellant has not paid his mortgage

since 2009 and has sought nothing more than the ability to live rent free for years.

1 Fannie Mae purchased the Property at a foreclosure sale on April 5, 2011 (Appendix “B”).

Procedural History of Past District Court Litigation and Appeal. The

Property at issue in this appeal is no stranger to the Third Court of Appeals.2 Two

days after the foreclosure sale of the Property, Appellant executed a deed without

warranty to John Rady (Appendix “F”) conveying any interest owned by Appellant

in the Property to Rady. Rady then utilized the deed without warranty to file a

district court lawsuit premised upon a defective notice of sale, whereby keeping

Appellant in the Property throughout a lengthy district court lawsuit and appeal to

this court.3 After years of delay, Rady dismissed his appeal voluntarily in mid

2014 and this eviction action against Acevedo followed.

2 See, Case No. 03-12-00764-CV; John Rady v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, et al.

3 The appeal was brought solely for delay. Note the delay in the request of the clerk’s record and reporters record (Notice of January 29, 2013 reflecting that the records were due to be filed by December 6, 2012). After the appellee’s motion to dismiss (April 18, 2013) and the Third Court’s Memorandum Opinion dismissing Rady’s appeal for failure to file the records (April 19, 2013), the Third Court withdrew its Opinion on April 23, 2013, on the promise by Rady that the record would timely be procured. A year later, when the matter was taken up by submission, Rady voluntarily dismissed his appeal on June 20, 2014. In short, Appellant Acevedo remained in possession of the Property after the April 5, 2011 foreclosure sale all the way through the June 24, 2014, dismissal of the appeal by wasting the Third Court’s time with a baseless appeal that was dismissed after the maximum gain of delay had been created. Appellant Acevedo now seeks to create the same delay at the eviction phase.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Appellant’s request for emergency relief filed herein: (1) fails to cite the

court to the proper authority, (2) fails to attach or rely upon any evidence and, (3)

fails to provide this court with any type of lower court record or transcript. It is

challenging for Appellee to respond to a motion that completely fails to comply

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) in that, “the [motion] must contain

a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations

to authorities and to the record.” T.R.A.P. 38(1)(i). As set out below, the rules

regarding how and when an appellant must act in setting a supersedeas bond are

straightforward.

1. T.R.A.P. 24.2. It is likely that Appellant’s failure to cite to the appellate

rules is not by accident. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 is very clear. It

provides in part,

(2) For recovery of property. When the judgment is for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property, the trial court will determine the type of security that the judgment debtor must post. The amount of security must be at least:

(A) the value of the property interest’s rent or revenue, if the property interest is real…

See, T.R.A.P. 24.2(2)(A). There has been no effort on the part of Appellant to

comply with T.R.A.P. 24.1 or 24.2 regarding the suspension of enforcement of the

judgment.

2. T.R.C.P. 510.13. In addition to the general requirements of T.R.A.P.

24.2 concerning proper bond amounts with respect to recovery of real property,

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510.13 specifically addresses bond requirements

following an eviction appeal in county court. Rule 510.13 provides in part,

…The judgment of the county court may not be stayed unless within 10 days from the judgment the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court pursuant to Section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.13.

Appellant made no effort to set a hearing to determine a supersedeas bond

after judgment was rendered by the county court. All that Appellant did was file a

surety bond (the surety being the wife of Mr. Rady) in the amount of five hundred

dollars. Fannie Mae is opposed to Ms. Rady serving as surety, and Fannie Mae is

opposed to a bond amount of only $500.00 on Property valued at $123,371.70

(Appendix B– substitute trustee’s deed). Appellant cannot simply lay beyond the

log and fail to set a proper hearing on the amount of a bond and then proceed to

file an improper and inadequate surety bond.

3. Texas Property Code §24.007. Texas Property Code Section 24.007

echo’s Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 510.13 in providing a clear cut mechanism to

supersede a county court judgment in an eviction suit. Section 24.007 provides,

(a) A judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a

supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. In setting the supersedeas bond the county court shall provide protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, taking into consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during appeal, damages which may occur as a result of the stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as the court may deem appropriate.

Tex. Prop. Code §24.007 (emp. added).

Again, Appellant made no effort to comply with Texas Property Code

§24.007 in having the County Court determine the proper amount of bond to be set

in this case. It is highly likely that Appellant did not request the county court to

evaluate the proper amount of bond as this specific County Court, along with many

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

Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae (Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 24.007
Texas PR § 24.007