Loft Concepts,



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 1, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00267

- CV

Dolores REYNOSO and Juan Reynoso, Appellant s

v.

LOFT CONCEPTS, INC., Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00936 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Loft Concepts, Inc. and against Dolores Reynoso and Juan Reynoso in a forcible entry and detainer action. The Reynosos timely appealed

. Dolores Reynoso filed an “appeal bond” in the amount of $15,000 , the amount set by

the trial court to supersede the judgment

. Dolores Reynoso subsequently filed an amended bond. The trial court has signed an order staying execution on a writ of possession

. Loft Concepts

chall enges the sufficiency of the bond and of the sureties on several grounds

.

Loft Concepts initially complains that the bond is not signed by judgment debtor Juan Reynoso. As Loft Concepts recognizes, Juan Reynoso is not in possession of the property and does not maintain he has a right of possession or to occupy the property. Juan Reynoso has not attempted to supersede the judgment against him. However, this fact does not affect the validity or sufficiency of the supersedeas posted by appellant Dolores Reynoso.

Loft Concepts next complains the bond is not payable to the judgment creditor

. Dolores Reynoso’s amended bond is expressly made payable to Loft Concepts, Inc. , the judgment

creditor , rendering this complaint moot

.

Loft Concepts asserts that the sureties’ oaths are insufficient because they do not state the sureties’ net worth or otherwise comply with the requirements of Rule 24.2(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, Rule 24.2(c) does not apply in this case , and Reynoso

w as not required to file a net worth affidavit with the bond , either for herself or for her sureties

.Finally, Loft Concepts asserts that Dolores Reynoso’s bond was not approved by the

clerk and that her sureties are insufficient. Rule 24.1(b)(2) provide s that “[t]o be effective a bond must be approved by the trial court clerk.” To be sufficient, a surety “[a] the very least, . . . , must be an entity or individual that is a legal entity, separate from the judgment debtor and not a party to the suit, who se solvency and ability to pay the judgment are established.” TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Finkelstein , 905 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1995, writ dism’d ). The party tendering the bond has the burden to establish the surety

is sufficient. Id.

We are unable to determine from the record before us whether the trial court clerk approved the bond or whether Reynoso’s sureties are sufficient. We therefore ab ate this appeal

and order the trial court to conduct a n evidentiary hearing and make findings on the following questions: (1) whether the trial court clerk has approved Dolores Reynoso’s bond and (2) whether Reynoso’s sureties are sufficient. We order th e trial court to forward its findings to this court in a supplemental clerk’s record by July 1, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hot tle

Clerk of Court