Mary Vela AKA Mary Nava v. Shafaii Investments Ltd. C/O Raj Sharaii

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00969-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 4, 2025.

In the

Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00969-CV ——————————— MARY VELA AKA MARY NAVA, Appellant v. SHAFAII INVESTMENTS LTD. C/O RAJ SHARAII, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1190335

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mary Vela (Vela), also known as Mary Nava, contends that the

trial court erred in granting a motion filed by appellee Shafaii Investments Ltd. c/o

Raj Sharaii (Shafaii Investments) to increase the amount of her supersedeas bond.

The supersedeas bond at issue was entered by the trial court as part of a final judgment that this Court affirmed in Vela v. Shafaii Investments, Ltd., No. 01-23-

00065-CV, 2024 WL 3056641 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 20, 2024, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (Vela I). Vela did not file in Vela I a motion under rule 24.4(a) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to review the amount of security set by the

trial court. For that reason, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In Vela I, Vela appealed from the trial court’s November 1, 2022 final

judgment. We affirmed that judgment on June 20, 2024. In this separate appeal,

filed on December 28, 2023, Vela seeks our review of the trial court’s December 7,

2023 post-judgment order granting a motion by Shafaii Investments, under rule

24.3(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, to increase the amount of

Vela’s supersedeas bond.

This Court “may review” any or all of the “sufficiency or excessiveness of

the amount of security” set by the trial court, the “sureties on any bond,” the “type

of security,” and the trial court’s “exercise of discretion under Rule 24.3(a).” TEX.

R. APP. P. 24.4(a)(1), (2), (3), (5); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 52.006(d) (“An appellate court may review the amount of security as allowed

under Rule 24, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure . . . .”). However, rule 24.4(a)

provides that a party may seek that review “by motion filed in the court of appeals

with jurisdiction or potential jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment in

the case.” (Emphasis added.) Rule 24.4(a) provides for review of the trial court’s

2 ruling on the bond as part of the appeal from the final judgment in the case.

Transcon. Realty Inv’rs, Inc. v. Orix Capital Markets LLC, 470 S.W.3d 844, 848

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing Gailey v. Gutierrez, No. 01-12-00491-

CV, 2013 WL 127557, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 10, 2013, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam)). Neither rule 24.4 nor section 52.006 provides an

independent basis for appellate jurisdiction. Id.

Here, Vela did not file a rule 24.4(a) motion in Vela I, her appeal from the

final judgment in the case. It thus appears that we do not have jurisdiction to

review the trial court’s December 7, 2023 order. See Orix Capital, 470 S.W.3d at

848 (dismissing appeal under rule 24.4(a) and section 52.006(d) for lack of

jurisdiction because appellant “did not initiate its attempt to obtain review of the

trial court’s ruling . . . by filing a motion in its appeal of the related final judgment

of the trial court” and, instead, “filed a separate appeal”); see also Gailey v.

Gutierrez, 2013 WL 127557, at *1 (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal under rule

24.4(a) because, where appellants did not timely appeal from trial court’s final

judgment, court of appeals had no jurisdiction to review subsequent appeal from

trial court’s post-judgment order impacting their supersedeas bond).

On November 6, 2025, we ordered Vela to file within 10 days of the date of

the order a written response demonstrating, with citation to law and the record, that

this Court has appellate jurisdiction over this appeal despite her failure to (a) file a

3 motion under rule 24.4(a) and (b) do so in Vela I. We noted in our November 6,

2025 order that a failure by Vela to respond would result in dismissal of the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Vela did not

adequately respond.

Accordingly, we hold that, because Vela failed to file a motion under rule

24.4(a) in Vela I, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.