ACCEPTED 03-15-00393-CV 5933580 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/6/2015 7:18:43 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK
No. 03-15-00393-CV __________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/6/2015 7:18:43 AM __________________________________________________________________ JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk MARY DECKER AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,
Appellants,
v.
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,
Appellee. __________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4 __________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF WRIT __________________________________________________________________
Dr. J. Hyde Texas Bar No. 24027083 THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 111 E. 17th Street #12015 Austin, TX 78711 Telephone: (512) 200-4080 Fax: (512) 582-8295 E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Counsel for Appellee No. 03-15-00393-CV __________________________________________________________________
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS __________________________________________________________________
MARY DECKER AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,
Appellee. __________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4 __________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF WRIT __________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellee Clifford Homes, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds to the Emergency Motion for Stay of Writ (“Motion”) filed
by Appellant Mary Decker, and in support thereof states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In a nutshell, Decker’s Motion seeks to stay issuance of a writ of
possession until the trial court sets a supersedeas bond—an event that took place
2 before the Motion was filed. Decker’s request is moot, and the stay issued by this
Court on 2 July 2015 should be lifted.
BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT
2. In this post-foreclosure forcible detainer action, the trial court
rendered a final judgment of possession in favor of Clifford Homes on 23 June
2015 following a summary-judgment hearing. (See Attachment B to Motion).
That judgment is on appeal in this proceeding.
3. On June 25, Decker filed a “Motion for Bond Application” in the trial
court. (See Attachment C to Motion).1 On June 29, Clifford Homes filed a
response to that motion. (See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Bond
Application and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond Is Set,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
4. On June 29 and 30, counsel for the parties communicated via e-mail
with the county court administrator regarding Decker’s Bond Application. (See
Attachment E to Motion; see also E-mails attached hereto as Exhibit 2). In
response to the court administrator’s request, on June 30 the undersigned e-mailed
the administrator copies of Decker’s application and Clifford Homes’ response,
along with each party’s proposed order. (See Exhibit 2). In the e-mail, the
1 Decker asserts in the Motion that she requested that the trial court set a bond at the conclusion of the summary-judgment hearing and that the trial court “refused” to do so. (See Motion, at ¶ 5). But the trial court’s “refusal” was not arbitrary, as Decker suggests. The trial court merely informed the parties that he was not setting a bond at that time because no bond application had been filed.
3 undersigned reiterated the importance of a speedy ruling in light of the Property
Code’s strict deadline for superseding eviction judgments. (See id.).
5. The next day, July 1, the trial court signed and filed an order ruling on
Decker’s Bond Application and setting the type and amount of security required to
suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. (See Order, attached hereto
as Exhibit 3).
6. On July 2, the undersigned checked the case docket and, seeing the
order reflected, requested and obtained a copy from the clerk’s office via e-mail.
(See e-mail from A. Wiseman to J. Hyde, attached hereto as Exhibit 4). Later that
day, Decker filed the underlying Motion without conferring with Clifford Homes,
and the Court entered a stay order shortly thereafter. Had Decker checked the
docket or conferred with the undersigned before filing the Motion, she would have
learned that the Motion was moot before she filed it.2
7. Although somewhat beyond the scope of the Motion, Clifford Homes
notes that the trial court’s July 1 order on the Bond Application is proper on its
merits. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to suspend enforcement of the trial
court’s judgment while an appeal is pending. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(f). In
2 As this Court noted in its July 2 Order, Decker’s Motion, though styled a petition for writ of mandamus, “is actually a motion in a pending appeal.” As such, the Motion was required to contain a certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). Decker made no such attempt to confer, and the Motion did not contain a certificate of conference (although one was inexplicably referenced in the Table of Contents).
4 eviction suits like the one at issue, in setting the 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(a); see also TEX. R.
APP. P. 24.2(a)(2) (requiring that the amount of security to suspend enforcement of
judgments “for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property” be at least
“the value of the property interest’s rent or revenue”).
8. The trial court appropriately set the appellate security in accordance
with the parameters of the Property Code and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
(See Exhibits 1 & 3). Decker may suspend enforcement of the judgment by
depositing the ordered security into the registry of the county court no later than 6
July 2015. TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(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.”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2)
(“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.”).
5 9. Clifford Homes would also note that the underlying appeal of the trial
court’s summary judgment is itself frivolous, as it involves an argument (often
made by the same attorney) that this Court has rejected multiple times in the past
few years. Specifically, Decker argued on summary judgment that a title dispute—
in the form of a challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale of the Property to
Clifford Homes—deprived Clifford Homes of the right to immediate possession,
even though the foreclosed deed of trust established a landlord-tenant relationship.
See, e.g., Wilder v. Citicorp Trust Bank, F.S.B., No. 03-13-00324-CV, 2014 WL
1207979 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (noting
that this Court “has consistently held that defects in the foreclosure process cannot
be used either to negate a landlord-tenant relationship provision in a deed of trust
or to raise a question of title depriving the justice or county courts of jurisdiction to
resolve the question of immediate possession”); see also Killebrew v. BKE
Investments, Inc., No. 03-13-00149-CV, 2014 WL 3055984 (Tex. App.—Austin
June 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Jaimes v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n,
No. 03-13-00290-CV, 2013 WL 7809741 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 4, 2013, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Reardean v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 03-12-
00562-CV, 2013 WL 4487523 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (same). Decker should not be permitted to continue to occupy the Property
6 while prosecuting a frivolous appeal without depositing the requisite security as
ordered by the trial court.
10. In sum, Decker’s Motion is moot, and the stay should be lifted. The
trial court properly ruled on Decker’s Bond Application, and it is up to her to
supersede the judgment while this appeal is pending.
WHEREFORE, Clifford Homes respectfully requests that the Court LIFT
the stay of the writ of possession entered on 2 July 2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ J. Hyde ______________________________ Dr. J. Hyde State Bar No. 24027083 THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 111 E. 17th Street #12015 Austin, Texas 78711 Phone: (512) 200-4080 Fax: (512) 582-8295 E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Attorney for Appellee
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Local Rule 4(d), a copy of Appellee’s Response to Emergency Motion for Stay of Writ was served on this 6th day of July, 2015, via e-service, upon the following:
David Rogers 1201 Spyglass, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746
/s/ J. Hyde ______________________________ Dr. J. Hyde
8 EXHIBIT 1 Response to Bond Application Filed: 6/29/2015 10:50:33 AM Nancy E. Rister, County Clerk Williamson County, Texas By: Regina Cockrell, Deputy Clerk
CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW § Plaintiff, § § v. § § MARY DECKER, § NUMBER 4 CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or § ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF § 1607 MAIN STREET, § CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, § § Defendants. § WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND APPLICATION AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF POSSESSION UNTIL BOND IS SET
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds to Defendant’s Motion for Bond Application and Motion to Stay
Writ of Possession (“Motion”), and in support thereof states as follows:
This is a post-foreclosure forcible detainer action. Eleven months ago, Plaintiff
Clifford Homes purchased the subject property at the August 2014 Williamson County
foreclosure auction. Following Defendant-induced delays in the eviction proceedings in
the Justice Court that necessitated mandamus relief, this Court signed a final judgment
granting Clifford Homes immediate possession of the Property, and Decker has appealed.
Now, after eleven months of living rent- and mortgage-free, Defendant Decker requests
that the Court set a supersedeas bond in the nominal amount of $500.00, summarily asserting that her net worth is -$88,040.66. In making this request, Decker cites
inapplicable authority that relates only to money judgments, makes unsupported
assertions about her net worth, provides no information about her monthly income, and
simply provides no support for the amount requested. As demonstrated below, the Court
should set the amount of the security necessary to supersede the judgment at $31,365.00,
which properly takes into account the reasonable rental value of the Property as required
by applicable law.
BACKGROUND
1. On 23 June 2015, the Court granted Clifford Homes’ motion for summary
judgment and rendered a final judgment awarding Clifford Homes immediate possession
of the real property located at 1607 Main Street, Cedar Park, Texas 78613. (See Ex. A to
Decker’s Motion).
2. Clifford Homes had purchased the Property at the 5 August 2014
foreclosure sale in Williamson County and initially filed the underlying forcible detainer
action in Justice Court seeking immediate possession of the Property on 7 October 2014.
The Justice Court rendered a final judgment in Decker’s favor on 2 April 2015, leading to
Clifford Homes’ appeal and this Court’s summary judgment on June 23.
3. The case had remained pending for an extended period in the Justice Court
because that court erroneously abated the case pending the outcome of a separate suit that
Decker filed in Williamson County District Court (the “Title Suit”) challenging the
validity of the foreclosure sale. This forced Clifford Homes to file a petition for writ of
2 mandamus, which this Court granted. (See Exs. 7 & 8 to Clifford Homes’ Traditional
Motion for Summary Judgment).
4. Decker has timely filed a notice of appeal from this Court’s final judgment.
5. In her Motion to set the bond, Decker asserts that undersigned counsel “has
stated that there is no amount of bond that his client would accept.” (Motion, at n.3).
Quite simply, that assertion is false. The undersigned has never made that or any similar
statement, which would be nonsensical and in contravention of the statutes and rules
governing supersedeas bonds. What the undersigned has stated to opposing counsel is
that his client would not accept a security amount that does not take into account the
rental value of the Property while the appeal is pending. That statement is consistent with
the arguments made herein and, more importantly, with applicable law.
ARGUMENT
6. Suspension of enforcement of eviction judgments is governed by Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and Texas Property Code section 24.007. Rule 24.1
allows a debtor to suspend enforcement of a judgment by, inter alia, filing “a good and
sufficient bond” or “making a deposit with the trial court clerk in lieu of a bond.” TEX. R.
APP. P. 24.1(a)(2), (3). However, “[w]hen 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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2). Rule 24 further allows the trial
court to “make any order necessary to adequately protect the judgment creditor against
loss or damage that the appeal might cause.” TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(e).
3 7. Importantly, section 24.007, which expressly governs forcible-detainer
appeals and which Decker conveniently failed to cite in her Motion, requires that any
security be posted “within 10 days of the signing of the judgment” and that it “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(a).
8. Decker cites Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 52.006 and Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(1) to argue that the amount of security may not exceed 50
percent of her net worth. Those provisions, however, expressly apply only to money
judgments. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 52.006(b) (“[W]hen a judgment is for
money, the amount of security must not exceed … 50 percent of the judgment debtor’s
net worth[.]”); TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(1) (“When the judgment is for money, the amount
of the bond … must not exceed … 50 percent of the judgment debtor’s current net
worth[.]”). By contrast, Property Code section 24.007, cited above, applies to forcible
detainer judgments. Consistent with that provision, Rule 24.2(a)(2) applies to judgments
“for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property” and states that the amount of
the security “must be at least … the value of the property interest’s rent or revenue.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). Unlike with money judgments, the amount
of security for a judgment for an interest in real property is not capped by the judgment
debtor’s net worth.
4 9. Accordingly, Decker’s contention that she has a negative net worth is
irrelevant to the proper amount of appellate security in this case. Even if it were relevant,
the evidence submitted in support of that contention is conclusory at best. Decker states
in an affidavit that she has total assets of $2,612 ($1,612 in bank accounts and cash, $750
in appliances and furniture, and $250 in home furnishings) and total liabilities of
$90,652.66 ($250 in credit card debt, $40,402.66 for an outstanding loan from NationStar,
and $50,000 in student loans). Leaving aside that these numbers appear a bit random, no
documentation was submitted in support of these amounts. The lack of documentation is
particularly troubling given Decker’s past readiness to provide bank statements to the
Court when she believes it supports her position. Because Decker’s net worth has no
bearing on the proper security amount, and because, in any event, she has failed to submit
competent evidence in support of her net worth, Decker’s request to set the amount of
appellate security at $500 lacks merit and should be rejected.
10. Instead, the Court should set the supersedeas amount in accordance with
Property Code section 24.007 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(2) by taking into
consideration the rental value of the Property while the appeal is pending. As shown by
the affidavit of Kenneth Ward attached as Exhibit 1, and the Comparative Market
Analysis attached as Exhibit 2,1 the current fair market rental value of the Property is
$1,845.00 per month. Further, publicly available information from the Third Court of
1 The Comparative Market Analysis is admissible as a business record. The affidavit of Kenneth Ward establishes that: (1) the record was made and kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, (2) it was the regular practice of the business activity to make the record, (3) the record was made at or near the time of the event that it memorializes, and (4) the record was made by a person with knowledge who was acting in the regular course of business. TEX. R. EVID. 803(6).
5 Appeals regarding eight recently concluded appeals of post-foreclosure forcible-detainer
judgments shows that these appeals were pending for an average of 17 months (from date
of filing notice of appeal to date of mandate). The spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit
3 summarizes the information underlying this fact, which may be judicially noticed. TEX.
R. EVID. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it … can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”).2
11. Multiplying the average number of months (17) by the Property’s monthly
rental value ($1,845.00) yields a total of $31,365.00. This is the reasonable, necessary,
and proper amount to protect Clifford Homes’ interest in the Property while the appeal is
pending.
12. To the extent equity is a consideration, it is worth reiterating that Decker
has been living in the Property for free for eleven months, and now seeks to go on living
basically for free while she appeals the judgment granting Clifford Homes immediate
possession. This is not a result contemplated by the supersedeas rules. Further, it
undercuts the purpose served by the statutory scheme governing forcible-detainer actions,
which the Legislature enacted “to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy for
determination of who is entitled to immediate possession of property.” Dormady v.
Dinero Land & Cattle Co., 61 S.W.3d 555, 558 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet.
dism’d w.o.j.) (citing Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936)). What
2 The docket information verifying the information in the spreadsheet is available on the Third Court of Appeals’ official website, accessible at http://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx.
6 should have been a speedy and inexpensive route to possession has become a lengthy and
expensive one. Clifford Homes has owned the Property for almost a year and has been
responsible for the burdens of ownership—such as purchase price (which was paid in full
at the foreclosure sale), property insurance, and taxes—but has been deprived of all the
benefits with no meaningful way to recover for that lost time. Conversely, Decker has
had the benefit of possession all this time even though she no longer owns the Property,
is no longer paying for it, and has no right to occupy it. To allow this state of affairs to
continue for an additional 17 (basically rent-free) months is far from equitable.
13. Decker accuses Clifford Homes of seeking a security amount that would
“shut the courthouse door and force the Defendant to give up her home” without the
opportunity to appeal. (Motion, at ¶ 6). That is simply not the case. Decker has already
commenced the appellate process by filing a notice of appeal. She also continues to
pursue the Title Suit. Any harm to Decker is not irreversible, and it is unclear how
Decker is harmed merely because she may not continue to live rent-free.
14. Finally, Clifford Homes notes that setting the security amount at or
anywhere near the incredibly low amount requested by Decker is particularly inequitable
given the frivolous nature of her appeal. Decker’s only challenge to Clifford Homes’
right to possession is that alleged defects in the foreclosure process purportedly rendered
the foreclosure sale of the Property to Clifford Homes invalid. That is the exact issue
being independently litigated in the Title Suit, and the law could not be more clear that
“defects in the foreclosure process cannot be used either to negate a landlord-tenant
relationship provision in a deed of trust or to raise a question of title depriving the justice
7 or county courts of jurisdiction to resolve the question of immediate possession.” Wilder
v. Citicorp Trust Bank, F.S.B., No. 03-13-00324-CV, 2014 WL 1207979 (Tex. App.—
Austin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.); see also, e.g., Killebrew v. BKE
Investments, Inc., No. 03-13-00149-CV, 2014 WL 3055984 (Tex. App.—Austin June 30,
2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Jaimes v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass’n, No. 03-13-00290-
CV, 2013 WL 7809741 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same);
Reardean v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 03-12-00562-CV, 2013 WL 4487523
(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2013, no pet.) (same); Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No.
03-10-00093-CV, 2011 WL 182122 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 6, 2011, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (same).
15. Allowing Decker to suspend enforcement of the judgment of possession for
almost nothing in order to pursue a frivolous appeal merely encourages frivolous appeals.
Clifford Homes is entitled to have the appellate security set at an amount that protects its
rights under the judgment the Court has rendered. It seeks nothing more and nothing less.
And its request is supported by the Property Code, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and
the evidence.
16. A brief response to Decker’s Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession
is warranted. The Property Code is clear: “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.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
8 writ of possession may be issued on 7 July 2015 if Decker has not yet posted supersedeas
in an amount set by the court.
17. To Clifford Homes’ knowledge, Decker has neither requested nor set a
hearing on her Motion for Bond Application. Clifford Homes stands on its written
submission, but is prepared to participate in a hearing if set.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Clifford Homes respectfully requests that the Court set the
amount of security required to supersede the judgment at $31,365.00. Clifford Homes
further requests that Defendant be required to deposit $31,365.00 in cash into the registry
of the Court no later than 6 July 2015 (the tenth day following the entry of judgment) in
order to supersede the judgment pending appeal.
/s/ J. Hyde ________________________________ Dr. J. Hyde State Bar No. 24027083 THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 111 E. 17th Street #12015 Austin, Texas 78711 Phone: (512) 200-4080 Fax: (512) 582-8295 E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this 29th day of June, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served upon all parties of record via e-service or facsimile:
David Rogers 1201 Spyglass, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746 Fax: (512) 201-4082
/s/ J. Hyde ________________________________ Dr. J. Hyde
10 CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW § Plaintiff, § § v. § § MARY DECKER, § NUMBER 4 CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or § ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF § 1607 MAIN STREET, § CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, § § Defendants. § WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER ON DEFENDANT MARY DECKER’S MOTION FOR BOND APPLICATION AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF POSSESSION UNTIL BOND IS SET
The Court rendered a final judgment of immediate possession in this action in favor of Plaintiff on 23 June 2015. Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Bond Application and Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond Is Set. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, and being fully advised, the Court finds that, pursuant to TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007 and TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2), the amount of security that Defendant must post to stay the final judgment in this action pending appeal is $31,365.00.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a), Defendant must deposit $31,365.00 in cash into the registry of the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, 6 July 2015, in order to suspend enforcement of the above- referenced judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond Is Set is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Signed this _______ day of ______________, 2015
_________________________________ Honorable Judge Presiding EXHIBIT 1 Affidavit of Ken Ward EXHIBIT 2 Comparative Market Analysis 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
Summary of Comparable Listings This page summarizes the comparable listings contained in this market analysis.
Leased Listings Address Price Bds Bth Sqft Tot Acres Lease Date CDOM ADOM 1607 Main ST 1999 0.226 609 Brazos Bend DR $1,700 3 2 1,726 0.115 05/23/2015 11 11 1802 Garner DR $1,700 4 2 1,710 0.117 05/14/2015 6 6 1804 Discovery BLVD $2,000 4 2 2,327 0.185 06/05/2015 17 17 Averages: $1,800 3.7 2.0 1,921 0.139 11 11
Low Median Average High Count Comparable Price $1,700 $1,700 $1,800 $2,000 3 Adjusted Comparable Price $1,836 $1,846 $1,845 $1,854 3
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Price Adjustments This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties.
Subject Property Details Adjust Details Adjust 1607 Main ST 609 Brazos Bend DR 1802 Garner DR MLS# 5220424 2921298 Status Leased Leased List Price $1,700 $1,700 List Date 04/20/2015 05/08/2015 Sold Price $1,700 $1,700 Sold Date 05/23/2015 05/14/2015 City Cedar Park Cedar Park 0 Cedar Park 0 Subdiv Cedar Park Towncenter Cedar Park Towncenter Sec 4 0 Cedar Park Towncenter Sec 3 0 County Williamson Williamson 0 Williamson 0 Zip 78613 78613 0 78613 0 Sqft Total 1999 1,726 136 1,710 144 # Stories 1 0 0 ADOM/CDOM --/ 11/11 0/0 6/6 0/0 Beds 3 0 4 0 Baths 2 (2 0) 0/0 2 (2 0) 0/0 # Gar Spcs 3 2 10 2 10 Pool on Prop No No 0 No 0 Year Built 2006 2007 0 2006 0 Acres 0.226 0.000 ac/0 0 0.000 ac/0 0 Buy Clsg $ 0 0 Pd by Slr Repairs Amt 0 0 Remarks: One Story Meticulously maintained 1 story home in great 4 spacious bedrooms in the highly sought 3 car garage area. 3 bedroom plus home office (could be after Leadner ISD! Great floor plan with tons 3 sides stone exterior exercise room, hobby room or 4th bedroom). of upgrades throughout. The open kitchen oversized corner lot Kitchen features granite counter tops and features stainless steel appliances, granite 2 blocks to neighborhood park/pool center island. Refrigerator stays. Hardwood counter tops, gas stove, island, and a floors through main areas of the home. breakfast area. Huge windows throughout Price adjustments based on $0.50 / square Laundry room with washer and dryer. bring in tons of natural light. The master bed foot + $10 for third car garage Upgraded throughout. room features a double vanity, separate Covered patio. 2 car rear entry garage with garden tub & shower, and walk in closet. The door opener. Located near major roads, private backyard with a covered patio is Costco and plenty of shopping/ restaurants. perfect for entertaining!
Price $1,700 $1,700 Total Adjustments $146 $154 Adjusted Price $1,846 $1,854
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Price Adjustments This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties.
Subject Property Details Adjust 1607 Main ST 1804 Discovery BLVD MLS# 8049941 Status Leased List Price $2,095 List Date 05/01/2015 Sold Price $2,000 Sold Date 06/05/2015 City Cedar Park Cedar Park 0 Subdiv Cedar Park Towncenter Cedar Park Towncenter 0 County Williamson Williamson 0 Zip 78613 78613 0 Sqft Total 1999 2,327 -164 # Stories 1 0 ADOM/CDOM --/ 17/17 0/0 Beds 4 0 Baths 2 (2 0) 0/0 # Gar Spcs 3 3 0 Pool on Prop No No 0 Year Built 2006 2013 0 Acres 0.226 0.000 ac/0 0 Buy Clsg $ 0 Pd by Slr Repairs Amt 0 Remarks: One Story Elegant open single story -CP Town Center. 3 car garage Huge covered front porch or covered back 3 sides stone exterior patio. 3 Car Garage, entering from back of oversized corner lot home. Gorgeous engineered wood floors. 2 blocks to neighborhood park/pool Spacious kitchen has granite counters, huge counter space area & breakfast bar. Master Price adjustments based on $0.50 / square suite has tiered ceiling, garden bathtub, foot + $10 for third car garage separate shower & double sinks. French doors open into study/formal dining. Fully fenced w/easy care fencing. Sprinkler system. Refrigerator, washer and dryer. Easy access to shopping, park, and pool.
Price $2,000 Total Adjustments $-164 Adjusted Price $1,836
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
Minimums and Maximums This page summarizes key fields of the listings in this analysis.
The listings in this analysis can be summarized as follows:
Listing Price between $1,700 and $2,095
3 to 4 Bedrooms
2.00 Total Bathrooms
1,710 to 2,327 Square Feet
Year Built between 2006 and 2013 years
$0.90 to $0.99 List Price per Square Foot
$0.86 to $0.99 Sold Price per Square Foot
6 to 17 Cumulative Days on Market
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
Number of Cumulative Days On Market This graph illustrates the number of cumulative days on market for the listings in this analysis.
Cumulative Days On Market 18
14 Days On Market
10 C D OM
0 4
8 42
29 20
21 52
MLS#
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
List Price and Sale Price This graph illustrates the list price, along with sale price in Sold listings.
Price Graph 2400
List Price 1200 Price
Sale Price
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Leased Properties 609 Brazos Bend DR MLS #: 5220424 Status: Leased Beds: 3 L Price: $1,700 County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $1,700 City: Cedar Park Age: 2007 Lse Dt: 5/23/2015 Parking: CDOM: 11
Rmks: Meticulously maintained 1 story home in great area. 3 bedroom plus home office (could be exercise room, hobby room or 4th bedroom). Kitchen features granite counter tops and center island. Refrigerator stays. Hardwood floors through main areas of the home. Laundry room with washer and dryer. Upgraded throughout. Covered patio. 2 car rear entry garage with door opener. Located near major roads, Costco and plenty of shopping/ restaurants. Direct: Take 183A and exit FM 1431. West on FM 1431 to Right on Discovery Blvd. Left at circle on to Main St. Right on Brazos Bend Dr.
1802 Garner DR MLS #: 2921298 Status: Leased Beds: 4 L Price: $1,700 County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $1,700 City: Cedar Park Age: 2006 Lse Dt: 5/14/2015 Parking: CDOM: 6
Rmks: 4 spacious bedrooms in the highly sought after Leadner ISD! Great floor plan with tons of upgrades throughout. The open kitchen features stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, gas stove, island, and a breakfast area. Huge windows throughout bring in tons of natural light. The master bed room features a double vanity, separate garden tub & shower, and walk in closet. The private backyard with a covered patio is perfect for entertaining! Direct: From 1431, go north on Discovery Blvd to Big Spring Drive. Turn left and go through the roundabout to Hill Country Drive, turn right on Bill Creek Prkwy, turn left on Garner, turn right.
1804 Discovery BLVD MLS #: 8049941 Status: Leased Beds: 4 L Price: $2,095 County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $2,000 City: Cedar Park Age: 2013 Lse Dt: 6/5/2015 Parking: CDOM: 17
Rmks: Elegant open single story -CP Town Center. Huge covered front porch or covered back patio. 3 Car Garage, entering from back of home. Gorgeous engineered wood floors. Spacious kitchen has granite counters, huge counter space area & breakfast bar. Master suite has tiered ceiling, garden bathtub, separate shower & double sinks. French doors open into study/formal dining. Fully fenced w/easy care fencing. Sprinkler system. Refrigerator, washer and dryer. Easy access to shopping, park, and pool. Direct: 183A north to Hwy 1431. Left onto 1431. Right on Discovery Blvd. House on right.
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Leased Properties Total # of Listings 3 Lowest Price $1,700 1802 Garner DR Highest Price $2,000
Average Price $1,800
Avg. Price/SqFt $0.95
Avg CDOM 11
1804 Discovery BLVD
609 Brazos Bend DR
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Summary Graph/Analysis 2.0K
1.6K
1.2K
0.8K
0.4K
0.0K
Avg Price Min Price Max Price
Cumulative Analysis
Listing Category Lowest Price Highest Price Average Price Avg $ Per SF Leased $1,700 $2,000 $1,800 $0.95
Totals / Averages $1,700 $2,000 $1,800 $0.95
Sold Property Analysis
Address List Price Sold Price CDOM %SP/LP SP/Sqft 609 Brazos Bend DR $1,700 $1,700 11 %100.00 $0.98 1802 Garner DR $1,700 $1,700 6 %100.00 $0.99 1804 Discovery BLVD $2,095 $2,000 17 %95.47 $0.86 Total Averages $1,832 $1,800 11 %98.49 $0.95
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Property Summary S Street Address Bds Bth Sqft L Price S Price Sold Date CDOM Leased L 609 Brazos Bend DR 3 2 (2 0) 1,726 $1,700 $1,700 05/23/2015 11 L 1802 Garner DR 4 2 (2 0) 1,710 $1,700 $1,700 05/14/2015 6 L 1804 Discovery BLVD 4 2 (2 0) 2,327 $2,095 $2,000 06/05/2015 17
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
Brief Summary of Compared Listings This report summarizes the comparable listings contained in this market analysis.
Status: Leased
MLS# Stat Date Address City Sqft Bds Bth L/S Price CDOM
5220424 05/23/2015 609 Brazos Bend DR Cedar Park 1,726 3 2.0 $1,700 11
2921298 05/14/2015 1802 Garner DR Cedar Park 1,710 4 2.0 $1,700 6
8049941 06/05/2015 1804 Discovery BLVD Cedar Park 2,327 4 2.0 $2,000 17
Averages: 1,921 4 2.0 $1,800 11
Summary Status Total Avg Price Avg $ Per SqFt Median Low High Avg CDOM
ACTIVE
AC
PENDING
PENDING TB
PENDING O4M
SOLD
LEASED 3 $1,800 $0.95 $1,700 $1,700 $2,000 11
EXPIRED
WITHDRAWN
Temp Off Mrkt
Total 3 $1,800 $0.95 $1,700 $1,700 $2,000 11
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward 1607 Main ST Cedar Park, 78613 Friday, June 26, 2015
Pricing Recommendation This page suggests a recommended selling price based on a thorough analysis of your property.
Fair market value of home is $1845 per month based on Average Adjusted Comparable Price. Large single story home with three car garage and three sides stone exterior on oversized corner lot located only two blocks from park/pool.
Comparables are all the leased homes within last 90 days in MLS with : 1 story, 1700-2400 square feet, subdivision = towncenter
Comparable adjustments based on $0.50 per foot and $10 for third car garage.
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward EXHIBIT 3 Spreadsheet Summarizing Court of Appeals Data Third&Court&of&Appeals&2 Appeal&Time&for&Recent&Post2Foreclosure&Eviction&Cases Notice&Date Mandate Number&of&Days Number&of&Months Rodriguez 2/22/10 5/11/11 443 14.8 Reardean 8/24/12 12/5/13 468 15.6 Killebrew 3/1/13 9/8/14 556 18.5 Jaimes 4/30/13 4/10/14 345 11.5 Wilder 5/9/13 2/26/15 658 21.9 Ashley 8/23/13 3/6/15 560 18.7 Ebert 10/30/13 12/11/14 407 13.6 Richards 8/28/13 6/4/15 645 21.5 AVERAGE 510 17.0 Rodriguez6v.6Citimortgage,6Inc.,6No.603A10A00093ACV,620116WL61821226(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Jan.66,62011) Reardean6v.6Fed.6Home6Loan6Mortgage6Corp.,6No.603A12A00562ACV,620136WL644875236(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Aug.614,62013,6no6pet.) Killebrew6v.6BKE6Investments,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00149ACV,620146WL630559846(Tex.6App.AAAustin6June630,62014,6no6pet.) Jaimes6v.6Fed.6Nat.6Mortgage6Ass'n,6No.603A13A00290ACV,620136WL67809741,6(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Dec.64,62013,6no6pet.) Wilder6v.6Citicorp6Trust6Bank,6F.S.B.,6No.603A13A00324ACV,620146WL612079796(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Mar.618,62014,6pet.6dism'd6w.o.j.) Ashley6v.6Citimortgage,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00584ACV,620146WL67466816,6(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Dec.618,62014,6no6pet.) Ebert6v.6Strada6Capital,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00729ACV,620146WL649150466(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Oct.61,62014,6no6pet.) Richards6v.6US6Bank6Nat'l6Ass'n,6No.603A13A00590ACV,620156WL66578966(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Feb.611,62015,6no6pet.) *All6filing6and6docket6information6available6at6the6Third6Court6of6Appeals'6official6website,6accessible6at6http://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx EXHIBIT 2 June 29 and 30 E-mails re: Bond Application 7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
J Hyde
Cause No. 15-0804-CC4;; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker Dr. J. Hyde Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM To: Sharrion Threadgill Cc: Matthew Wilson , David Rogers Bcc: Ken Ward
Dear Ms. Threadgill,
Ms. Decker's Motion for Bond Application and our Response to that Motion are attached to this email. Our proposed order is included at the end of our Response and Ms. Decker's are attached separately. These documents have all been filed with the county clerk in the records of this case. The only issue with the July 7th deadline stems from the wording of TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(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." (emphasis added). With the holiday, the 10 days in his case is over on July 6th. Please advise as to how Judge Pennington would like us to proceed with respect to this issue. Thank you.
J
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Sharrion Threadgill wrote:
Gentlemen –
Judge Pennington has requested each attorney submit a proposed Order along with written argument and he will provide a ruling. Your arguments along with proposed Orders should be submitted on or before July 7th.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
----‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Sharrion Threadgill, Court Administrator
Williamson County Court at Law #4 405 Martin Luther King, Box 17 Georgetown, Texas 78626 512-943-1681 512-943-1685 fax SThreadgill@wilco.org
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 1/5 7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
From: Dr. J. Hyde [mailto:jhyde@jhydelaw.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:55 PM To: Matthew Wilson Cc: Sharrion Threadgill;; David Rogers Subject: Re: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker;; 15-0804-CC4
We certainly do not oppose a quick hearing. However, in the interest of saving all parties time and expense, as well as the convenience of the visiting judge, we believe the bond request can be resolved based on the written submissions and accompanying evidence. At this point, it seems that any testimony at the hearing would be duplicative of what has already been submitted. In any event, we recognize the time-sensitive nature of Defendant's request, as the statutory deadline for Defendant to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal is 6 July 2015. Thank you.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Wilson wrote:
Hi Mrs Threadgill,
This email is to request a hearing to set a bond in the forcible detainer case: 15-0509-CC4. The visiting judge granted summary judgment on June 23rd and did not set a bond despite a specific request for bond. A notice of appeal, motion to set bond, and a motion to stay writ of possession were filed in this case last week. I have three specific questions in this case.
1) Will a hearing be set this week in order to set bond?
2) If a hearing cannot be set this week before the ten day deadline, can a nominal bond be set until the court can set a hearing to set bond?
3) Will the court allow a writ of possession to issue in instances where a bond has not been set and a notice of appeal has been filed with the court?
Thanks, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 2/5 7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
Matthew L. Wilson
Wilson Law Office, PLLC Attorney at Law 512.201.4519 Direct 512.923.1836 Office 512.201.4082 E-Fax MWilson@MatthewWilsonLaw.com MatthewWilsonLaw.com
Serving With Honor
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication (including any attached document(s)) may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. The information is intended for the sole use of the indicated addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this email communication, please be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this communication or any attached document is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this fax communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail (mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com), and promptly destroy all copies of this communication and any attached document(s). Thank you.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 3/5 7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
--
Dr. J. HYDE
The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC
111 E. 17th St. #12015
Austin, Texas 78711
T: 512.200.4080
F: 512.582.8295
E: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is attorney/client privileged and confidential and solely for the identified recipient. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this transmission.
TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by you for the purpose of (1) avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
-- Dr. J. HYDE The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC 111 E. 17th St. #12015 Austin, Texas 78711 T: 512.200.4080 F: 512.582.8295 E: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is attorney/client privileged and confidential and solely for the identified recipient. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this transmission.
TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by you for the purpose of (1) avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
3 attachments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 4/5 7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
Decker - Application for Bond - 062515.pdf 653K Response to Bond Motion - File Stamped.pdf 5459K Decker Proposed CC4 Orders.pdf 413K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 5/5 EXHIBIT 3 Order on Bond Application EXHIBIT 4 July 2 E-mail from A. Wiseman to J. Hyde re: Bond Order 7/4/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - 15-0508-CC4
15-0508-CC4 Anita Wiseman Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:45 PM To: "jhyde@jhydelaw.com"
Anita Wiseman
Deputy Clerk
Williamson County
Civil/Probate
512-943-1140
Order.tif 38K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=awiseman%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e50164ec14ca34&siml=14e50164ec… 1/1