Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ i

No. 03-15-00393-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARY DECKER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law #4, Williamson County, 

Texas; Cause No. 15-0508-CC4

Styled “Clifford Homes, LLC.

v.

Mary Decker and Christopher Decker

and/or all other occupants of 1607 Main St.”

Hon. Mickey R. Pennington, Presiding Judge

RELATORS EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

and 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF WRIT

Matthew L. Wilson David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24079588 Texas Bar No. 24014089

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW WILSON, PLLC LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass Drive 1201 Spyglass Drive

Suite 100 Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746 Austin, TX 78746

MWilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Telephone: 512-201-4519 Telephone: 512-923-1836 

Fax: 512-777-5988 Fax: 512-777-5988

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR, MARY DECKER

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

ACCEPTED

03-15-00393-CV

5923451

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/2/2015 2:53:07 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/2/2015 2:53:07 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ ii

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a complete list of all parties, as well as the names and 

addresses of all counsel:

PARTIES COUNSEL

Mary Decker Matthew L. Wilson

Texas Bar No. 24079588

WILSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

1201 Spyglass Drive

Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: 903-705-2540 

 Fax: 512-201-4082 

David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24014089 

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass Drive

Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: 512-923-1836 

 Fax: 512-201-4082 

Clifford Homes, LLC . J. Hyde 

Texas Bar No. 24027083

The J. Hyde Law Office, PLLC

111 E. 17th St. #12015

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-200-4080 

 Fax: 512-582-8295 
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Identity of Parties and Counsel.................................................................................ii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................iii

Index of Authorities................................................................................................. iv

Appendices ............................................................................................................... v

Statement of the Case ............................................................................................... 1

Facts ......................................................................................................................... 2

Argument & Authorities .......................................................................................... 4

Rule 510.8(d)(3) prohibits issuing writ..................................................................... 4

The Logic of Consistency ......................................................................................... 5

Sauce for the Gander ................................................................................................ 7

Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 8

Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 10

Certificate of Conference........................................................................................ 10
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) ............................................... 7

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) ................. 6

Isern v. Ninth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 604, 606 (Tex. 1996).......................... 7

Knepp v. K.R.A.K. Invs., LLC, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3699, 2014 WL 

1464978 (Tex. App. Austin Apr. 8, 2014)................................................................ 8

Marshall v. Hous. Auth., 198 S.W.3d 782, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 193, 49 Tex. 

Sup. J. 399 (Tex. 2006) ............................................................................................ 6

Peck v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15154, 2013 

WL 6805665 (Tex. App. Austin Dec. 18, 2013) ..................................................... 6

Perales v. Riviera, 13-03-002-CV, 2003 WL 21705740 (Tex. App. July 24, 

2003) citing El Paso Dev. Co. v. Berryman, 729 S.W.2d 883, 888 

(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no writ) ................................................................. 4

Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex. 1997) .......................7

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–844 (Tex. 1992)....................................... 7

Wilhelm v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) .................................................................... 5, 6

RULES

Tex. R. App. P. §24.400(a)........................1

CODES

TEX. PROP. CODE §24.007(a)..................3, 5, 7

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.220, 22.221.......4
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ v

APPENDICES 

ITEM A Judgment of the Justice Court

ITEM B Judgment of the County Court

ITEM C Notice of Appeal and Motion for Bond Application

ITEM D Email from Relator’s counsel to county court clerk

ITEM E Response email from county court clerk to counsel 
1

No. 03-15-00393-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARY DECKER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law #4, Williamson County, 

Texas; Cause No. 15-0508-CC4

Styled “Clifford Homes, LLC.

v.

Mary Decker and Christopher Decker

and/or all other occupants of 1607 Main St.”

Hon. Mickey R. Pennington, Presiding Judge

RELATOR’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS and 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF WRIT

Relator, MARY DECKER submits this Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Stay of Writ complaining of the 

Honorable Mickey Pennington, visiting judge of the County Court at Law 

No. 4 of Williamson County, Texas. 

David Rogers, of the Law Office of David Rogers, and Matthew 

Wilson WILSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, attorneys of record for Relator Decker, 

pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. §24.400(a). and the Third Court of Appeals 
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 2

Local Rules and procedures, file their Opposed Motion for Writ of 

Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Stay of Writ.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Relator respectfully seeks relief based on exceptional circumstances 

and the significant timing issues in setting a supersedeas bond after a final

judgment order in Williamson County Court. 

2. On June 26, 2006, Mary Decker purchased her home at 607 Main

Street, Cedar Park, Texas 78613. Mary Decker made every monthly 

payment and never defaulted on her loan. 

3. Nevertheless, the mortgage servicer wrongfully foreclosed and sold 

the property to Clifford Homes, LLC. on August 5, 2014 at a foreclosure 

sale.

4. Clifford Homes filed the underlying forcible detainer action, Cause 

No. 2JE-14-0454 in the Williamson County Justice Court. The Justice court 

dismissed the forcible detainer suit, and set the bond at $1,500.1 Clifford 

Homes paid the bond and appealed the decision to Williamson County Court 

#4.

5. On June 23, 2015, the Honorable Judge Mickey Pennington signed an 

order at the County Court granting Clifford Home’s Traditional Motion for 

 1 See Exhibit A – Justice Court Judgment, Cause #2JE-14-0454
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 3

Summary Judgment.2 Relator’s counsel requested the court set a 

supersedeas bond at the hearing on June 23, 2015. The court refused to set a 

bond at the hearing. The court’s entry of final judgment did not set a bond.

6. On June 25, 2015, Relator filed a notice of appeal and a motion to set 

bond.3

7. On June 29, 2015, Relator’s counsel went to the County Court and 

requested the court clerk to set a hearing to set bond. The court did not set a 

hearing and requested Relator’s counsel send the court an email.

8. On June 29, 2015, Relator’s counsel sent the County Court Clerk an 

email in order to set a timely hearing to set the supersedeas bond.4 

9. On June 30, 2015, the county court clerk responded to the email 

requesting each attorney submit arguments and proposed orders to Judge 

Pennington by July 7, 2015.5 

10. The requested submission date is too late and fourteen days after the 

entry of final judgment. 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).

 2 See Exhibit B – County Court Judgment, Cause #15-0508-CC4

3 See Exhibit C – Notice of Appeal and Motion for Bond Application and Emergency 

Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond is Set

4 See Exhibit D – Email from Relator’s counsel to county court clerk

5 See Exhibit E – Response email from county court clerk to attorneys
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 4

11. Relator has made every effort in order to supersede the judgment 

pending appeal within the 10 day statutory limit. (Day 10 falls on July 3, 

2015, a state and federal holiday preceding a weekend. Under the rules, the 

bond is therefore due on there first day not a weekend or holiday, July 6, 

2015.)

12. Now, Relator faces imminent irreparable injury6 from losing 

possession of her home as a result of the trial court’s abuse of discretion. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency stay are 

being sought by this motion to preserve the status quo.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

13. Jurisdiction in this mandamus action is mandatory and exclusive in 

the Texas Third Court of Appeal. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.220, 22.221.

ISSUE PRESENTED

14. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to set a bond and

failing to give the Relator an opportunity to supersede judgment of a forcible 

detainer case pending appeal?

ARGUMENT

15. Relator is facing an impossible position with no adequate remedy at 

 6 “[E]very piece of real estate is unique, and if foreclosure were allowed before a full 

determination of the underlying claims, appellees would be irreparably harmed.” Perales 

v. Riviera, 13-03-002-CV, 2003 WL 21705740 (Tex. App. July 24, 2003) citing El Paso 

Dev. Co. v. Berryman, 729 S.W.2d 883, 888 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no writ).
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 5

law. Relator has made every reasonable effort in order to have the county 

court set a supersedeas bond. 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). When a county court fails to set a supersedeas bond, Relator has 

no opportunity to supersede the judgment in a forcible detainer case. 

16. The prevailing party in a forcible detainer case has no incentive to 

have a bond set within the statutory ten-day deadline. To the contrary, the 

prevailing party would prefer that no supersedeas bond be set in order to 

take possession of the property at the earliest possible opportunity. 

17. To compound this problem, an appellate court's power to stay the 

judgment of the county court in a forcible detainer action is limited. An 

appellate court may not stay the judgment unless a supersedeas bond in 

accordance with section 24.007 has been filed. See Tex. Prop. Code 

§ 24.007; Wilhelm v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 

18. Although the failure to supersede a forcible-detainer judgment does 

not divest a defendant of his right to appeal when the defendant is no longer 

in possession of the premises, an appeal from the judgment in that case is 
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 6

moot unless the defendant asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to 

current, actual possession.” Marshall v. Hous. Auth., 198 S.W.3d 782, 2006 

Tex. LEXIS 193, 49 Tex. Sup. J. 399 (Tex. 2006); Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 

768. 

19. The Third Court has dismissed forcible detainer appeals as moot once 

the appellant no longer has possession of the property. Peck v. Fed. Home 

Loan Mortg. Corp., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15154, 2013 WL 6805665 (Tex. 

App. Austin Dec. 18, 2013)

20. The current statutory scheme and jurisprudence in forcible detainer 

cases force parties like the Relator into a position where they have don’t 

have an adequate remedy on appeal, and once they do appeal the controversy 

is moot because they have already lost possession of their property. 

21. Relator should not lose possession of her home and lose the chance to 

supersede the county court’s judgment, because the trial court refuses to set 

a bond in the ten day limit to pay the bond required by statute.

Mandamus is appropriate relief

22. In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, Relator must meet two 

requirements: (1) the trial court must have clearly abused its discretion and 

(2) there must be an absence of an adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) This case satisfies 
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 7

both requirements.

23. Because mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy,” it is available only 

in limited circumstances when necessary to “correct a clear abuse of 

discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other 

adequate remedy by law” [CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 

1996) (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 

(Tex. 1985)); see also Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 

88 (Tex. 1997); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–844 (Tex. 1992)].

24. The trial court has abused its discretion by not setting a supersedeas 

bond within ten days of the final judgment required by TEX. PROP. CODE

§24.007(a). The trial court refused to set a bond when requested at the 

hearing on June 23, 2015. The court has not set the bond after Relator filed 

a motion requesting bond and notice of appeal, and the court has not set a 

hearing after being requested within the time period required by statute. 

This independent abuse of discretion has deprived Relator of an adequate 

remedy at law. Relator has no remedy at law to supersede the county court 

judgment.

25. Mandamus has been issued to require the trial court to lower the 

amount of a supersedeas bond. Isern v. Ninth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 

604, 606 (Tex. 1996). When a county court sets an unclear supersedeas 
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 8

bond they have been instructed to specify the amount and terms for 

suspending enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. Knepp v. K.R.A.K. 

Invs., LLC, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3699, 2014 WL 1464978 (Tex. App. 

Austin Apr. 8, 2014)

Mandamus is an available and required remedy because there is 

no adequate remedy by appeal

26. Setting no supersedeas bond is more detrimental, because when the 

court refuses to set a bond, neither party has been adequately informed of the 

terms on which the underlying judgment may be superseded pending appeal.

27. Relator made every payment on her loan, and was foreclosed upon 

due to no fault of her own. Now she is facing an imminent eviction due to 

the trial court’s failure to set a timely bond. She will be forced from her 

home without even the opportunity to post a supersedeas bond to suspend 

the writ of possession.

28. Unless the writ of possession is stayed, this Court’s jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of Appellants appeal will be vitiated.

29. Now, Relator face imminent irreparable injury from losing her home

on July 6, 2015, as a result of the trial court’s abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the petition for mandamus and emergency stay being sought

are the only adequate remedies available to Relator.

Prayer
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 9

30. Appellants respectfully request this Court rule on this motion by July 

6, 2015, because the circumstances involve an emergency. Appellants 

request that this Court grant their petition for mandamus and emergency 

motion to stay the impending writ of possession. 

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Wilson, Attorney at Law

__/s/ Matthew Wilson___________

Matthew Wilson

Texas Bar No. 24079588

WILSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

1201 Spyglass Drive

Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

MWilson@matthewwilsonlaw.

com

Telephone: 903-705-2540 

 Fax: 512-777-5988

David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24014089 

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass Drive

Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Telephone: 512-923-1836 

 Fax: 512-777-5988
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 10

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE & SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion 

was served by the Court’s online filing system on this the 2nd day of July,

2015, to: 

Dr. J. Hyde,

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 / Real Party in Interest

_/s/ David Rogers_________

David Rogers
Decker – Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ 11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify that 

this document contains 1,700 words.

__/s/__David Rogers___________

David Rogers

SBN 24014089

Law Office of David Rogers

1201 Spyglass Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

(512) 923-1836

(512) 777-5988 [Facsimile]

Firm@DARogersLaw.com
No. 03-15-00393-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARY DECKER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law #4, Williamson County, 

Texas; Cause No. 15-0508-CC4

Styled “Clifford Homes, LLC.

v.

Mary Decker and Christopher Decker

and/or all other occupants of 1607 Main St.”

Hon. Mickey R. Pennington, Presiding Judge

RELATOR’S APPENDIX OF ATTACHMENTS

ITEM A Judgment of the Justice Court

ITEM B Judgment of the County Court

ITEM C Notice of Appeal and Motion for Bond Application

ITEM D Email from Relator’s counsel to county court clerk

ITEM E Response email from county court clerk to counsel 
ITEM A

Judgment of the Justice Court

ITEM B

Judgment of the County Court
CAUSE NO.ls-050&CC4

CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

MARYDECKER,

CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or

AIL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF

1607 MAIN STREET,

CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,

Defendants.

IN THE COIJNTY COI]RI'AT LAW

NUMBER4

WILLIAMSON COLINTY, TEXAS

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMIV1ARY

JUDGMEI{T AND ENTRY OF F'INAL JUDGMENT

On the 23rd day of June, 2015, came to be heard Plaintiffs Traditional Motion for

Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Having heard the arguments of counsel aad having

reviewed the parties' briefing on the Motion and the record evidence, the Court finds that

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for forcible detainer, as Plaintiff

has proven as a matter of law that it is entitled to immediate possession of the premises

looated at 1607 Main Sffeet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff, CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

recover from the Defendants MARY DECKER, CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or ALL

OTI{ER OCCUPANTS OF 1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, AS

follows:

Possesgion of the premises at 160? Main Steet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

Court costs.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to a return of the cash appeal

bond filed by Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.00. The clerk's office is ordered to

RELEASE this cash bond to Plaintiff. This is a FINAL ruDGMENT.

Siened this ? 3 day of -fu-, ,2015

L

2.

FILED

at /o sY o'chdt---l-il

A!)

JUN 2 3 2915

iJo^qERU

counU Gte*H;lrieffEnh co,r 

r

Honoragl6 Judge Pr6siding
ITEM C

Notice of Appeal and Motion for Bond 

Application
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

§

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

COMES NOW Mary Decker, Defendant, and notices this court that she will 

appeal this court’s order of June 23, 2015.

Introduction

1. Plaintiff is Clifford Homes, LLC

2. Defendants are Mary Decker and Christopher Decker and All Other 

Occupants.

3. This is an appeal from Justice of the Peace Precinct 2.

4. May 7, 2015 Plaintiff’s filed their Motion for Summary Judgment.

5. June 17, 2015 Defendant filed her Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment.

6. A hearing was held in this matter on June 23, 2015.

Facts

7. The Honorable Mickey Pennington signed his order in favor of Plaintiff’s 

Summary Judgment on June 23, 2015.

8. Defendant desires to appeal and files this notice. 

9. The appeal is taken to the Third Court of Appeals. 

Filed: 6/25/2015 4:47:56 PM

Nancy E. Rister, County Clerk

Williamson County, Texas

By: Regina Cockrell, Deputy Clerk
10. Defendant has filed her request for supersedeas bond separately from this 

notice.

11. A copy of the judgment to be appealed is attached to this notice as 

“Attachment 1”.

Respectfully submitted,

___/s/ David Rogers______________

David Rogers

State Bar #24014089

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Tel. (512) 923-1836

Fax (512) 777-5988

Matthew Wilson

State Bar #24079588

WILSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

MWilson@MatthewWilsonLaw.com

Attorneys for Mary Decker

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing notice was 

served upon all parties of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

on this 25th day of June, 2015.

__/s/ David Rogers___________

David Rogers

State Bar #24014089

Attorney for Mary Decker

The J. Hyde Law Office, PLLC

Dr. J. Hyde

111 E. 17th Street #12015

Austin, Texas 78711

Phone: (512) 200-4080

Fax: (512) 582-8295
Attachment 1
CAUSE NO.ls-050&CC4

CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

MARYDECKER,

CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or

AIL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF

1607 MAIN STREET,

CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,

Defendants.

IN THE COIJNTY COI]RI'AT LAW

NUMBER4

WILLIAMSON COLINTY, TEXAS

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMIV1ARY

JUDGMEI{T AND ENTRY OF F'INAL JUDGMENT

On the 23rd day of June, 2015, came to be heard Plaintiffs Traditional Motion for

Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Having heard the arguments of counsel aad having

reviewed the parties' briefing on the Motion and the record evidence, the Court finds that

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for forcible detainer, as Plaintiff

has proven as a matter of law that it is entitled to immediate possession of the premises

looated at 1607 Main Sffeet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff, CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

recover from the Defendants MARY DECKER, CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or ALL

OTI{ER OCCUPANTS OF 1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, AS

follows:

Possesgion of the premises at 160? Main Steet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

Court costs.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to a return of the cash appeal

bond filed by Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.00. The clerk's office is ordered to

RELEASE this cash bond to Plaintiff. This is a FINAL ruDGMENT.

Siened this ? 3 day of -fu-, ,2015

L

2.

FILED

at /o sY o'chdt---l-il

A!)

JUN 2 3 2915

iJo^qERU

counU Gte*H;lrieffEnh co,r 

r

Honoragl6 Judge Pr6siding
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

§

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:

COMES NOW, Defendant Mary Decker, Defendant/Occupant of the property 

located at 1607 Main Street, Cedar Park, Texas 78613, and files this defendant’s motion 

for bond application and clarification and emergency motion to stay writ of possession 

until bond is set. 

SUMMARY

1. On June 23, 2015, the Honorable Judge Mickey Pennington signed an order 

granting Plaintiff’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant moves the 

Court to clarify the County Court’s judgment dated June 23, 2015 as follows. The 

court’s entry of final judgment did not set a bond. See Exhibit A. Defendant’s counsel 

requested the court set a bond at the hearing on June 23, 2015. The court refused to set a 

bond at the hearing. 

2. Defendant perfected this appeal on June 25, 2015, by filing a notice of appeal. 

“An appeal is perfected when a written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court clerk. 

The filing of a notice of appeal by any party invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction 

Filed: 6/25/2015 4:42:37 PM

Nancy E. Rister, County Clerk

Williamson County, Texas

By: Regina Cockrell, Deputy Clerk
over all parties to the trial court’s judgment or order appealed from.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.1(a)(b).

3. Defendant is unable to ascertain from the county court’s judgment how or 

whether a supersedeas bond was calculated, what the total amount of the bond is, or how 

the bond must be satisfied. The bond conditions are impermissibly vague and ambiguous 

because the court never set a bond. As a result of this ambiguity, neither the Plaintiff nor 

Defendant have been adequately informed of the terms on which the underlying judgment 

may be superseded pending appeal.

4. Defendant therefore requests the county court to specify the precise amount and 

terms of the security required to suspend enforcement of the judgment on appeal. 

Defendant requests that a bond be set at five hundred dollars ($500) to avoid any 

ambiguities over whether a bond has been set and paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.3(a) (trial 

court has continuing jurisdiction to order amount and type of security even after that 

court’s plenary power has otherwise expired). See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4 (a) (governing 

trial court’s remedial error when failure or refusal to act prevents the proper presentation 

of a case to the court of appeals). See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 (2) (governing standard for 

reversible error when the error prevents the appellant from properly presenting the case to 

the court of appeals). 

5. With defendant’s filing of her notice of appeal, she declares her intention to 

appeal and does not waive her right to supersede the judgment until a bond has been set. 

Plaintiff’s failure to request a bond to protect the judgment and the court’s refusal to set a 

bond at the hearing in no way reflects defendant’s waiver of her legal right to have the 

trial court’s judgment superseded pending appeal to the court of appeals. 

REASONABLE BOND TO BE SET

TEX. CIV. PRAC & REM. CODE §52.006 is explicit about protecting money 

judgments.1 No evidence was introduced by Clifford Homes at any time that it was 

 1 § 52.006. Amount of Security for Money Judgment

(a) Subject to Subsection (b), when a judgment is for money, the amount 
incurring any money damages, that it had suffered any money damages, or that it was 

likely to suffer any money damage in the future. Had Clifford Homes introduced such 

evidence, and had the Court ruled that an award of damage were appropriate, the Court 

would have been limited by TEX. CIV. PRAC & REM. CODE §52.006 (b): 

 (b) 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 of the judgment debtor's net worth; or

(2) $ 25 million.

Clifford Homes has presented no evidence.2 There is no testimony before the court, and 

no affidavits or self-authenticating documents that could support a large request for bond 

in this case. 

6. The clear intent34 of Clifford Home’s is to set the Appellant’s bond at an amount 

that would shut the courthouse door and force the Defendant to give up her home and 

give up her rights without the opportunity for full and final adjudication of her claims by 

the Appellate courts. 

 

of security must equal the sum of:...

2

 “[P]leadings, even if sworn, are not evidence. See Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc. v. City of 

Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 660, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 973 (Tex. 1995). Further, an attorney's 

opening argument is not evidence. Weslaco Federation of Teachers v. Texas Educ. 

Agency, 27 S.W.3d 258, 263 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet.).” Schade v. Rhodes, 2004 

Tex. App. LEXIS 5419, 8 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. June 17, 2004)“However, 

counsel's argument is not evidence. See Chase v. State, 750 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Tex. App.--

Fort Worth 1988, pet. ref'd).”Bolden v. State, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 409, 9 (Tex. App. 

Dallas Jan. 31, 1997)

3

 Plaintiff’s counsel has stated that there is no amount of bond that his client would 

accept.

4

 This is in contrast to the judgment at the justice court. Defendant prevailed, the court 

set at $1,500 bond, and the Plaintiff exercised its legal right to pay the bond and 

supersede the judgment pending appeal. Defendant is entitled to the same legal 

protections.
NET WORTH BOND CAP

7. According to TEX. CIV. PRAC & REM. CODE § 52.006, amount of bond may not 

exceed fifty percent of net worth. Mary Decker has an actual net worth of negative 

-$88,040.66. (See Exhibit B, attached Affidavit and Net Worth Calculation).

8. The Austin Court of Appeals has recently endorsed the method of limiting bond 

caps requested by Defendants.

To suspend a money judgment pending appeal in a civil case, section 

52.006, subsection (a), of the civil practice and remedies code requires that 

a judgment debtor furnish a bond, deposit, or other security in an amount 

"equal [to] the sum of: (1) the amount of compensatory damages awarded 

in the judgment; (2) interest for the estimated duration of the appeal; and 

(3) costs awarded in the judgment." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

52.006(a); see TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(1) (rule implementing section 

52.006, subsection (a)). This amount, however, may not exceed the lesser 

of fifty percent of the judgment debtor's current net worth or $ 25 million. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 52.006(b); see TEX. R. APP. P. 

24.2(a)(1). Additionally, if the trial court finds that the judgment debtor is 

likely to suffer "substantial economic harm" from posting security in the 

amount otherwise required, the court "shall lower the amount of the 

security to an amount that will not cause the judgment debtor substantial 

economic harm." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 52.006(c); see 

Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(b).

Shook v. Walden, 304 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. App.--Austin 2010)

9. Black’s Law Dictionary defines net worth as “the amount by which assets exceed 

liabilities” or “remainder after deduction of liabilities from assets” or the difference 

between total assets and liabilities of individual, corporation, etc.” BLACK’S LAW 

DICTIONARY at 1041 (6th ed. 1990).

10. In EnviroPower, LLC v Bear Sterns & Co., Inc. 265 S.W. 3d 1 4-5 (Tex App.-

Houston [1st Dist.] 2008), the court defines “Net Worth” for purposes of setting a 
supersedeas bond as the difference between total assets and total liabilities as determined 

by generally accepted accounting principals at the time the bond is set. See also LMC 

Complete Automotive Inc. v Burke, 229 S.W.3d 469, 482 (Tex App-Houston [1st Dist.] 

2007); Texas Custom Pools, Inc. v. Clayton, 293 SW3d 299 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009). 

The Dallas Court of Appeals calculated net worth by taking the difference between the 

assets and liabilities as shown on the judgment debtor’s balance sheet and held that its net 

worth was negative. Therefore, the court of appeals ordered the security set at zero.5 

G.M. Houser, Inc. v Rodgers, 204 S.W. 3rd 836, 846 (Tex App- Dallas 2006, no pet.)

11. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(c)(1), Mary Decker’s affidavit, with assets and 

liabilities detailed, show a net worth of less than zero. A judgment debtor who provides a 

bond, deposit, or security under Rule 24.2(a)(1)(A) in an amount based on the debtor's 

net worth must simultaneously file an affidavit that states the debtor's net worth and 

states complete, detailed information concerning the debtor's assets and liabilities from 

which net worth can be ascertained. TEX.R.APP.P. 24.2(c)(1). Mary Decker has provided 

such an analysis. The attached affidavit and analysis shows that she has a net worth of 

negative (-$88,040.60). Defendant requests the court set the supersedeas bond at $500.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Mary Decker, prays that 

this honorable Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Bond Application and Motion to Stay 

 5 On this record, we conclude the net worth of G.M. Houser, Ltd. is a negative $ 333,516 

and the net worth of Houser Materials, L.L.C. is $ 2688. We reverse and render the trial 

court's June 30, 2006 order fixing security for supersedeas. Therefore, we order that the 

security for supersedeas for G.M. Houser, Ltd. is set at $ 0, and the security for 

supersedeas for Houser Materials, L.L.C. is set at $ 1344, which is fifty percent of Houser 

Materials, L.L.C.'s net worth.
Writ of Possession until bond is set.

Respectfully submitted,

___/s/ David Rogers______________

David Rogers

State Bar #24014089

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass Drive, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Tel. (512) 923-1836

Fax (512) 777-5988

Matthew Wilson

State Bar #24079588

WILSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

MWilson@MatthewWilsonLaw.com

Attorneys for Mary Decker

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

upon all parties of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 

25th day of June, 2015.

__/s/ David Rogers___________

David Rogers

State Bar #24014089

Attorney for Mary Decker

The J. Hyde Law Office, PLLC

Dr. J. Hyde

111 E. 17th Street #12015

Austin, Texas 78711

Phone: (512) 200-4080

Fax: (512) 582-8295

Attorney for Clifford Homes, LLC.
CAUSE NO.ls-050&CC4

CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

MARYDECKER,

CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or

AIL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF

1607 MAIN STREET,

CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,

Defendants.

IN THE COIJNTY COI]RI'AT LAW

NUMBER4

WILLIAMSON COLINTY, TEXAS

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMIV1ARY

JUDGMEI{T AND ENTRY OF F'INAL JUDGMENT

On the 23rd day of June, 2015, came to be heard Plaintiffs Traditional Motion for

Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Having heard the arguments of counsel aad having

reviewed the parties' briefing on the Motion and the record evidence, the Court finds that

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for forcible detainer, as Plaintiff

has proven as a matter of law that it is entitled to immediate possession of the premises

looated at 1607 Main Sffeet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff, CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,

recover from the Defendants MARY DECKER, CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or ALL

OTI{ER OCCUPANTS OF 1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, AS

follows:

Possesgion of the premises at 160? Main Steet, Cedar Park, Texas 78613.

Court costs.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to a return of the cash appeal

bond filed by Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.00. The clerk's office is ordered to

RELEASE this cash bond to Plaintiff. This is a FINAL ruDGMENT.

Siened this ? 3 day of -fu-, ,2015

L

2.

FILED

at /o sY o'chdt---l-il

A!)

JUN 2 3 2915

iJo^qERU

counU Gte*H;lrieffEnh co,r 

r

Honoragl6 Judge Pr6siding



ITEM D 

Email from Relator’s counsel to county 

court clerk
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker; 15-0804-CC4

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f6fdfced7690&siml=14e4f6fdfced7690 1/3

Charlotte Secord <charlotte.secord@gmail.com>

Fwd: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker; 15­0804­CC4

1 message

Matthew Wilson <mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com> Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:43 AM

To: David Rogers <darogers@aol.com>, Charlotte Secord <charlotte.secord@gmail.com>

Begin forwarded message:

From: Matthew Wilson <mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com>

Subject: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker; 15-0804-CC4

Date: June 29, 2015 1:03:32 PM CDT

To: "SThreadgill@wilco.org" <SThreadgill@wilco.org>

Cc: David Rogers <darogers@aol.com>, "Dr. J. Hyde" <jhyde@jhydelaw.com>

Hi Mrs Threadgill,

This email is to request a hearing to set a bond in the forcible detainer case: 15­0509­CC4. 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,

Matthew L. Wilson

Wilson Law Office, PLLC
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker; 15-0804-CC4

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f6fdfced7690&siml=14e4f6fdfced7690 2/3

Attorney at Law

512.201.4519 Direct

512.923.1836 Office

512.201.4082 E­Fax

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 attorney­client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this fax communication in error,

please notify the sender immediately by e­mail (mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com), and promptly destroy all copies of this communication and any attached

document(s). Thank you.

PastedGraphic­2­4 copy.tiff
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker; 15-0804-CC4

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f6fdfced7690&siml=14e4f6fdfced7690 3/3

22K
ITEM E

Response email from county court clerk to 

counsel
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f709f3df8fab&siml=14e4f709f3df8fab 1/4

Charlotte Secord <charlotte.secord@gmail.com>

Fwd: Cause No. 15­0804­CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

1 message

Matthew Wilson <mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com> Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:44 AM

To: David Rogers <darogers@aol.com>, Charlotte Secord <charlotte.secord@gmail.com>

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sharrion Threadgill <sthreadgill@wilco.org>

Subject: Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

Date: June 30, 2015 10:02:44 AM CDT

To: "Dr. J. Hyde" <jhyde@jhydelaw.com>, Matthew Wilson <mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com>

Cc: David Rogers <darogers@aol.com>

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

512­943­1681

512­943­1685 fax

SThreadgill@wilco.org
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f709f3df8fab&siml=14e4f709f3df8fab 2/4

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; 15­0804­CC4

Dear Ms. Threadgill,

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 time­sensitive 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.

J

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Wilson <mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com> wrote:

Hi Mrs Threadgill,

This email is to request a hearing to set a bond in the forcible detainer case: 15­0509­CC4. 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?
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f709f3df8fab&siml=14e4f709f3df8fab 3/4

Thanks,

Matthew L. Wilson

Wilson Law Office, PLLC

Attorney at Law

512.201.4519 Direct

512.923.1836 Office

512.201.4082 E­Fax

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 attorney­client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this fax communication in error,
7/2/2015 Gmail - Fwd: Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9f7152a45d&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14e4f709f3df8fab&siml=14e4f709f3df8fab 4/4

please notify the sender immediately by e­mail (mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com), and promptly destroy all copies of this communication and any attached

document(s). Thank you.

­­

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 e­mail in error, immediately

notify the sender by reply e­mail 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.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion 

was served by the Court’s online filing system on this the 2nd day of July,

2015, to: 

Dr. J. Hyde,

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 / Real Party in Interest

_/s/ David Rogers_________

David Rogers