Loft Concepts, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00267-CV

Dolores REYNOSO and Juan Reynoso,

Appellants

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 

challenges 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 

was 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) provides 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, whose 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 abate this appeal 

and order the trial court to conduct an 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 the 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. Hottle

Clerk of Court