CAUSE NO. 01-1500398-CV 

JENNIE LARRY JOHNSON § 

Appellant, § 

§ 

§ IN THE FIRST

 § 

 § 

§ 

vs. § COURT OF APPEALS

§ 

 § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

FREO TEXAS LLC § 

 Appellee § HOUSTON, TEXAS

APPELLEE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF POSSESSION

Appellee asks the Court to either dismiss this appeal as moot as there is no 

actual controversy between Appellant and Appellee. 

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Appellant is JENNIE LARRY JOHNSON (‘JOHNSON’); Appellee is 

FREO TEXAS LLC (‘FREO’). 

2. This matter before the Court is an appeal of a trial court’s judgment 

rendered in a forcible detainer action brought by Appellee, the foreclosure sale 

purchaser of the Subject Property located at 1907 Doliver, Missouri City, TX 

77489 (the ‘Subject Property’). 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00398-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/14/2015 3:21:54 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/14/2015 3:21:54 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
3. This judgment was rendered by the County Court at Law No. 3 of 

Fort Bend County, Texas on January 28, 2015 in cause number 1040674. 

4. On that same day and via the trial court’s final judgmetn the trial 

court also set the supersedeas bond in the amount of $10,200.00.

5. Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal on February 02, 2015 

6. Appellant did not supersede enforcement of the trial court’s 

judgment. Rather, on February 02, 2015 Appellant filed with the trial court

Tenant’s Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal Bond & Answer. 

7. Because Appellant failed to supersede enforcement fo the trial court’s 

judgment Appellee has requested that a writ of possession issue.

8. In response Appellant has filed an Emergency Motion with this Court 

seeking a stay of the execution of the writ of possession. Appellant appears to 

argue that the writ should be stayed because it submitted to the trial court a 

pauper’s affidavit in lieu of supplying the requisite bond.

B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

9. Texas forcible detainer actions are governed by Section 24 of the 

Texas Property Code and Rule(s) 510 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

10. TRCP 510.13 provides the basis for staying execution of a writ of 

possession upon appeal from a de novo judgment in a forcible detainer to the 

Court of Appeals. Specifically, TRCP 510.13 provides: 
“ The writ of possession, or execution, or both, will be issued by the 

clerk of the county court according to the judgment rendered, and the 

same will be executed by the sheriff or constable, as in other cases. 

The judgment of the county court may not be stayed unless within 10 

days from the judgment the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an 

amount set by the county court pursuant to Section 24.007 of the 

Texas Property Code.” TRCP 510.13

11. This rule must be read in conjunction with Texas Property Code 

section 24.007 which provides that

[i]n setting a supersedeas bond the county court shall provide 

protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, 

taking into consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during 

appeal, damageswhich may occur as a result of the stay during 

appeal, and other damages or amounts the court may deem 

appropriate.

See McCartney v. California Mortgage Serv., 951 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex.App.-El 

Paso 1997, no pet.) (quoting Tex.Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (West Supp.1999)).

12. A judgment creditor has a statutory right to have execution issued to 

enforce a judgment pending appeal, unless and until a valid supersedeas bond has 

been filed. Texas Employers' Ins. Assoc. v. Engelke, 790 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex.App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (citing Anderson v. Lykes, 761 S.W.2d 

831, 833 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding) & Elliot v. Lester, 126 S.W.2d 

756, 758 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1939, no writ)). The fact that a judgment debtor is 

financially unable to file such bond does not destroy this statutory right. Engelke, 

790 S.W.2d at 95.

13. Additionally, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 addresses 

suspension of enforcement of judgments pending appeal in civil cases. 

Tex.R.App.P. 24. Rule 24 provides different methods a party may use to suspend 

the enforcement of judgments pending appeal including filing with the trial court 

clerk a written agreement with the judgment creditor for suspension of 

enforcement of the judgment, a good and sufficient bond, a cash deposit in lieu of 

bond, or providing alternate security ordered by the court. See Tex.R.App.P. 24.1.

14. This rule does not include a pauper's affidavit as a method to 

supersede a judgment and thus Appellant failed to supersede the trial court’s 

judgment. As such its Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Writ of Possession 

should denied. 

D. PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellee asks the Court to deny Appellant’s emergency 

motion to stay writ of possession and grant Appellee such other and further relief 

to which it may be entitled or is in the interest of justice. 
Respectfully Submitted:

JACK O’BOYLE & ASSOCIATES

 /s/ Travis H. Gray 

Travis H. Gray

SBN 24044965

P.O. Box 815369

Dallas, Texas 75381

Phone: 972.247.0653

Fax: 972.247.0642

travis@jackoboyle.com

Attorneys for Appellee

FREO TEXAS LLC 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on the 

following counsel and/or pro se parties of record, in accordance with Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 9.5, on the date shown.

Dated: May 14, 2015

L. Mickele’ Daniels

7322 Southwest Freeway

Houston, TX 77074

P: 713.995.4681

F: 713.995.4685

Seminole85@peoplepc.com

Counsel for Appellant 

 /s/ Travis H. Gray 

Travis H. Gray