1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 3 5 7 - CV
J E S S E F . R E E CE , S R . AP P E L L ANT V . FO U N TA I N G A TE A PA RTM EN TS A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 89 TH DI STRI CT CO URT OF W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n t hi s f or ci bl e ent r y and detai nerpr oceedi ng, A ppel l antJesse F. Reece, Sr . , pr o se , app ea l s t he di st r i ct cou r t ’ s or der di sm i ss i ng f or w ant ofj ur i sd i ct i on hi s app ea l f r om t he j us t i ce cou r t . W e l i ke w i se di sm i ss f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on.2 Back gr ound O n M ay 15, 200 7, A ppe l l ee Foun t ai nga t e Apar t m ent s i ns t i t ut ed evi ct i on p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s tR e e c e , i t s t e n a n t , i n a j u s t i c e c o u r t i n W i c h i t a Co u n t y . On M ay 29 , 20 07 , af t er a hear i ng on t he m er i t s, t he j ust i ce c o u rt r ender ed j udgm entgr anti n g Foun t ai nga t e p os se ss i on oft he pr em i se s i n que st i on a nd
u n p a i d re n t o f $ 1 5 1 .5 7 . O n J u n e 4 , R e e c e f ile d a d e c la r a t io n o f in a b ilit y t o p a y c o s t s u n d e rru le
o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re 7 4 9 ( a ). S ee T EX . R. C IV . P. 74 9( a) . Fountai ngate f i l ed an obj ec t i on t o Reec e’ s dec l ar at i on. O n Ju ne 11, af t era hea r i ng on t he m er i t s, t he j us t i ce co ur tdi sa ppr ove d Ree ce ’ s dec l ar ati o n o fi nab i l i t y t o pa y c os t s and
o rde red h i m to d e p o sitw it h t h e co u rta c a sh b o n d o r su retyb o n d p a y a b l e to Foun t ai ngate i n t he am oun tof $9 48 and t o pay a t r anscr i ptf ee of$1 0. Reece app ea l ed t he j us t i ce co ur t ’ s or dert o t he cou nt y cou r t , and af t er ano t herhe ar i ng on t he m er i t s, t he coun t y cour t al so di sappr oved hi s af f i davi tofi nabi l i t y t o pay c o s ts o n J u l y2 . Reec e f i l ed an app ea l bond on J ul y 6, butt he pur p o rte d bond w as not app r ove d byt he j us t i ce co ur tas r equ i r ed by r ul e 749 and w as s i gne d onl y by R e e c e , n o t a n ys u re ty . S ee T EX . R. C IV . P. 749. H i s a p p e al w as f i l ed i n t he 8 9 th D i stri c t C o u rt o f W i c h i ta C o u n ty. R e e c e fi l e d a p u rpo rt e d o a th o f su rety
o n J u l y1 3 , i n w h i c h h e l i s te d h i m s e l f a s h i s o w n s u re ty .3

F o u n ta i n g a te fi l e d a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l b e c a u s e R e e c e ’s def ec t i v e a p p e a l b o n d f a i l e d t o c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The di st r i ctcour tdi sm i ssed t he appeal on S ept em ber7. Reece per f ect ed an appeal to th i s c o u rt o n O c to b e r 4 . D i sc us si on In h is f ir s tis s u e , R e e c e a r g u e s t h a t “ [ t ] h e c ir c u m s t a n t ia l e v id e n c e is f a c t u a l l y in s u f f ic ie n t ” t o s u p p o r tt h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o fh is a p p e a l. R u le 7 4 9 p r o v id e s t h a t a p a r t y m a y a p p e a l a ju s t ic e c o u r tju d g m e n tin a f o r c ib le ent r y a nd de t ai nerca se by f i l i ng w i t h t he j us t i ce , w i t hi n f i ve day s af te rt he j udgm enti s si gne d, a bond t o be app r ove d bys ai d j us t i ce an d pa yab l e t o t he
a d v e rs e p a rty . T EX . R. C IV . P. 74 9. Rul e 75 0 set s outt he f or m f ort he appeal bond aut hor i z ed by r ul e 749, and t he f or m ca l l s f orex ec ut i on oft he bond by th e p ri n c i p a l a n d a s u re ty . T EX . R. C IV . P. 750. A b o n d f i l e d un de rr ul e 749
m us t s ub s t a nt i a l l y c om pl y w i t h t he f or m s e to uti n r ul e 750. Phar i s v. C ulver, 677 S. W . 2d 168, 1 7 0 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 1984 , no w r i t ) . The f ai l ur e t o t i m el y f i l e a bond i n ac cor dan ce w i t h r ul e 749 dep r i ves t he r evi ew i ng c o u rt o f j u ri s d i c ti o n . Wetsel v. FortWorth Brak e, Clutch & Equi p. I nc ., 780 S .W .2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 3

– 5 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 8 9 , n o w ri t). Reec es ’ s pur por t ed app ea l bond di d notl i stan y s ur et y a nd w as not execut ed by a sur et y as r equi r ed by r ul e 75 0. I n hi s “oat h ofsur et y, ” he l i st ed2 ... For m err ul es 43 0 and 36 3a concer ned appeal bond s i n ci vi l appeal s,

a s u b j e c t n o w c o v e re d b yru l e o f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re 2 4 . T EX . R. A PP . P. 24. 4 h im s e lfa s t h e p u r p o r t e d s u r e t y . T o a llo w a j u d g m e n td e b t o rt o s e r v e a s h is
ow n sur et y w oul d def eatt he pur pose of an appeal bon d, w hi ch i s t o guar ant ee t he pay m entofj udgm entda m age s, co st s, and at t or ney ’ s f ee s i n t he eve ntof
a n u n s u c c e s s fu l a p p e a l b yth e j u d g m e n t d e b to r. S eeT EX . R. C IV . P. 752 . The und i sput ed r ecor d show s t hatReece f ai l ed t o f i l e a bond thatsubst ant i al l y m et t he r equ i r em ent s ofr ul e 750 ; t her ef or e, t he evi den ce w as f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci ent t o s u p p o r tt h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o fh is a p p e a l. I n t he l at t erpar tofhi s f i r sti ssue and i n hi s second i ssue, Reece ar gues t hatw hen an app ea l bond i s def ec t i ve, t he cou r ts houl d a l l ow t he bond t o be
am end ed r at hert han di sm i ss t he app ea l . I n Ph a r is , t he f i r st cour t ofappeal s, ci t i ng f or m er r ul es of pr ocedu r e 43 0 an d 3 63 a, h e l d th a t a co u n ty c o u rt m ay 2 per m i t a part y t o am end a d ef ec t i ve bond upo n a ti m ely request . 677 S. W . 2d at 170 ( quot i ng Woods Expl orati on & Produci

ng Co. v. A r

kl a Equi p. Co. , 528 S . W . 2d 56 8, 57 0 ( Tex . 19 75 ) ) . Ree c e m a d e n o such r equesti n t he di st r i ct
c o u rt . M or eov er , t o pr es er ve a c o m pl ai ntf orourr evi ew , a part y m us tha ve pr es ent ed t o t he t r i al cou r t a t i m el y r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on t hats t at es t he sp ec i f i c g r ounds f or t he des i r ed r ul i ng, i f t hey ar e not app ar ent f r om t he con t ext5

o f th e re q u e s t, o b j e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a ); see al so T EX . R. E VID . 1 0 3 (a )(1) . I fa part y f ai l s t o do t hi s, er r ori s notpr es er ved , an d t he
c o m p l a i n t i s w a i v e d . Bushel l v. D ean , 803 S. W . 2d 711, 712 ( Tex. 1991 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) . Agai n, Reec e d i d notr equ es tan oppo r t uni t y t o am end t he def ec t i ve bon d i n t he t r i al cour t ; t hus, he w ai ved hi s com pl ai ntco n c e rn ing t he t r i al
c o u rt’s re fu s a l to a l l o w h i m to d o s o . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a ). W e o v e r r u le hi s f i r stand second i ssues. The gr ava m en of Reec e’ s t hi r d i ss ue i s unc l ea r , buthe ap pea r s t o a r gue t hat he shoul d be al l ow ed t o ser ve as hi s ow n sur et y. For t he r easons st at ed above, w e over r ul e hi s t hi r d i ssue. I n hi s f our t h i ssue, R eece appar ent l y ar gues t hatt he j ust i ce cour ter r ed b y is s u in g a w r ito fp o s s e s s io n a f t e rt h e d is t r ic tc o u r td is m is s e d h is a p p e a l. Partoft hi s ar gum ent r el at es bac k t o hi s f i r stt hr ough t hi r d i ss ues ; es se nt i al l y, Reec e a r gue s t hatt he j us t i ce co urt e rre d b y i ss ui ng a w r i tofpos se ss i on bec aus e h i s bond w as s uf f i ci entt o per f ec t an app ea l t o t he di st r i ctco ur tan d
s u p e rc e d e th e j u s ti c e c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. H a v i n g o v e rru l e d h i s fi rs t th ro u g h th i rd i ssues, w e l i kew i se over r ul e t hi s par t of hi s f our t h i ssue f ort he sam e r easons. I n t he r em ai nde rof hi s f ourt h i ss ue, he app ar ent l y ar gue s t hat t he w r i tof possessi on vi ol at ed r ul e 75 5 because t he subj ect pr em i ses w er e hi s p rinci pal
r esi dence. Rul e 75 5 pr ovi des t hat a w r i t of possessi on shal l not be suspended6

ors upe r ce ded b y a n a ppe al f r om t he j us t i ce co ur t ’ s j udgm entunl es s t he p re m i s e s i n q u e s ti o n a re b e i n g u s e d a s th e p ri n c i p a l re s i d e n c e o f a p a rty . T EX . R. C IV . P. 75 5. Because R eece ’s d e fe c tiv e bond di d not per f ecthi s appeal
u n d e r ru l e 7 4 9 , h e w a s n o t e n ti tl e d to s u s p e n s i o n o f th e j u s ti c e c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t u n d e r ru l e 7 5 5 . See i d. T h e r e f o r e , w e o v e r r u le t h e re m a in d e ro fh is f our t h i ssue. C onc l us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed al l ofReec e’ s i ss ues , w e d i sm i ss hi s app ea l f orw antof j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 3 .2 (f ). W e d e n y F o u n tai n g a te’s “M o ti o n to D i s m i s s fo r F a i l u r e to P ro s e c u te ” a n d i ts “ O b j e c ti o n to In c l u s i o n o f M a tte rs O u ts i d e th e R e c o rd i n A p p e a l .”

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; G A RD N ER and W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t26, 2008