COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS J OE ROWE, Appellant,

v. KARA WATKI

NS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00001- CV

Appea l from the County Court of Jeff Davis County , Texas (TC# 293)

O P I N I O N Appellant, J oe Rowe, appea ls the county court’s judgme nt awa rding owner ship of a fema le dog named Sara to Appellee , Kar a Watkins. Finding that Watkins failed to perf ect her appea l from the j ustice court to the county court, we hold that the county court ne ver obta ined jurisdiction and there fore , err ed by failing to g rant Rowe’s plea to the jurisdiction

. Ac co rd i n gl y , we vacate the county court’s judgme nt and reinstate the justice court’s judgme nt that awa rded owner ship of Sara to Rowe. BACK GR OUND We rec ently set out the fac ts of this case in our opinion on Rowe’s superse des bond. See R o w e v. W

atkins , 324 S.W .3d 111 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2010, no pet.). There , we noted that this

case beg an as a dispute over Sara’ s owner ship when Rowe took possession of the dog from Watkins in June of 2007, when Watkins moved from her home in For

t Davis, Texas to Alaska. Id

. at 112. When Watkins returne d to Texas the following May , she went to Rowe ’s home to take Sara back. Id . The two pa

rties ar g ued over

the dog , and a phy sical alter cation ensue d. Id

. Procedural HistoryRowe su b s eq u en tly filed sui t in the j ustice court to establish his owner ship of S ara . After

a bench trial, the justice court, on J une 24, 2008, awa rded Sara to Watkins, and the following day , sign ed a written judgme nt in her favor

. Rowe filed a motion for new trial and later, a motion for judgme nt, asking the court to vacate its judgme nt in favor of Watkins and rende r judgme nt in his favor

. On J une 30, 2008, the justice court vacated the judgme nt for Watkins, rec onsidered the evidenc e, and r ender ed a w ritten judg ment for Rowe

. The following day , Watkins filed a motion for new t rial and judgme nt, asking the court to reinstate its orig inal judgme nt. On J uly 3, 2008, the justice court denied Watkins’ motion for new trial, and on J uly 14, 2008, it denied her motio n fo r j udg ment. Also on J uly 14, 2008, Watkins indicated her notice to appea l to the county court by filing her appea l bond, and the justice court approve d the bond that same d ay . T h re e day s later, Rowe notified the justice court by letter that Watkins’ appea l bond did not meet the statutory require ments as it f ailed to list two sureties. That

same letter was sent to Watkins by fac simil e the same day

. Watkins did not corr ect the appea l bond. On J uly 23, 2008, Watkins filed her petition in the county court. Rowe t hen filed his plea to the jurisdiction, contending that the appe al was ne ver perf ecte d as Watkins failed to corr ect he r appea l bond. I n November 2008, the county court, in deny ing Rowe’s plea, ag ree d that the bond was defe ctive but allowed Watkins an opportunity file a corr ecte d appea l bond befor e Dec ember 5, 2008. W at k i n s fi led the new appea l bond on Dec ember 2, 2008. Be lieving the new bond was also defe ctive, Rowe raised additional o b j ec tions that the new bond omitted any lang uag e binding the sureties and that the monetary amount of the bond was absent. Neve rtheless, the case proce eded to a jury trial, and the jury

found in Watkins’ favor.

DISCUSSIO N On appeal , Rowe bring s eig ht issues for our revie w. His first three issues fault Watkins’appea l to the county court, alleg ing that she failed to f ile a proper appea l bond more than five day s afte r she rec eived notice of defe cts in the bond, that the cou n t y ’s court g rant of an extension to

corr ect the appea l bond was reve rsible err or, and that the county court err ed by ref using to dismiss the appea l when Watkins’ subsequent bond, following the court’s extension, was also defe ctive. I n I ssues Four and Five, Rowe contends that the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to support the jury ’s

answe rs t o the questi ons submitt ed, and in I ssues Six and Seven, Rowe complains that the county court err ed by not g rant i n g h i s m o t ions for new trial and judgme nt notwithstanding the verdic t. Rowe’s eig hth and final issue alleg es err or in the county court’s order to surre nder possession of the dog without first issuing a written judgme nt or a writ of execution, or allowing him the opportunity to suspend enfor ceme nt of the judgme nt for appellate purposes. Finding merit in Rowe’s first issue,

we do not addre ss his rema ining claims. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 47.1 (“The court of appea ls must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as prac ticable but that addre sses ever y issue raised and

nece ssary to final dispositi on of the a ppeal.” ). Standard of Review A defe nding party may proper ly challeng e a t ri al court’s jurisdiction by a plea to the jurisdiction. Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). I ndeed, w hether a trial court has jurisdiction to decide a case is a question of law. State v. Holland , 221 S.W .3d 639, 642 (Te x . 2007); Tex. Dept. of Parks & W ildlif e v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). There fore , as applicable to this case , whether the trial court should have g rante d Rowe’s plea to the jurisdiction, whic h contende d that Watkins’ de fec tive appea l bond never confe rre d jurisdiction on the county court, is a leg al question that we revie w de novo . See Mayhe w v. Town of Sunnyvale , 964 S.W .2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998), cert. denied , 5 2 6 U.S. 1144, 119 S.Ct

. 2018, 143 L .Ed.2d 1030 (1999); W atkins v. De busk , 286 S.W .3d 58, 60 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2009, no pet.).Applicable Law

To perf ect an appea l from a justice court to a county court, the appea ling party must not only file an appea l bond or an aff idavit of inability to pay , but must also pay the costs of the appea l to the county cler

k within twenty day s o f b ei n g n otified by the cler k to do so. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. ex. rel. RBLS, Inc. v . The Law Off ice of Dav id Pierce , 311 S.W .3d 595, 598 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2010, no pet.); W atkins , 286 S.W .3d at 60; T E X . R. C I V . P. 571 & 572. A ccor ding to Rule 573 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e, the appea l is perf ecte d when the bond is filed and satisfies the require ments of Rule 571. T E X . R. C I V . P. 573. To comply with Rule 571, the appea ling party must file an appea l bond “with two or more g ood and sufficie nt sur eties” in a n amount equal to twice the amount of the judgme nt within ten day s from the date the judgme nt is signe d. T E X . R. C I V . P. 571. When the appea l bond contains defe cts or irreg ularities, either of form or substance, the case should not be dismiss ed without first allowing the app ealing party five day s, afte r notice of the defe ct, to corr ect or amend the defe ctive appea l. T E X . R. C I V . P. 571. Although the rules do not presc ribe a

specific ty

pe of notice , we have held that the notice must, in t he ver y least, conf

orm to due proce ss w hich is me t if the notice aff ords the party a fair opportunity to a ppear and defe nd her interests. Ashley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 598; W atkins , 286 S.W .3d at 62; In re A.Y

. , 16 S.W .3d 387, 388 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2000, no pet.). As compliance with the appellate req u i re m en t s of Rule 571 is jurisdictional, see Almahrabi v. Booe , 868 S.W .2d 8, 10 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993, no writ), if the appea ling party fails to meet any one of the rule’s prer equisites, and also fails to corr ect the defe ct within five day s of notice, the appellate court, i.e., the county court, lacks jurisdiction to hear the appea l a

nd must dismiss the sa

me. See A shley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 598; W illiams v. Schneibe r , 148 S.W .3d 581, 583 (Tex. App. – For t Worth 2004, no pet.).Application

Her e, the rec ord ref

lects that Watkins filed her appea l bond on J uly 14, 2008, the same day that the justice court denied her motion for judgme nt. Howeve r, that bond was defe ctive as it listed

no sureties, other than Watkins herse lf, as require d by the rules. See T E X . R. C I V . P. 571. By letter, Rowe not ified t he jus tice court of t he defec tive bond on J uly 17, 2008. That same l et t er was sent by fac s i m i l e to Watkins the same day

. There fore , Watkins had five day s from J uly 17, 2008, to 1

corr ect the appea l bond. See T E X . R. C I V . P. 571; Ashley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 599-600. Howeve r, Watkins did not corr ect the appea l bond until Dec ember 2, 2008, which was well bey ond the five-da

y limit

. Acc ording ly , the county cour t l acked jurisdiction over the appea l. Ashley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 600; Knupp v. Nolan Managem ent Co., Inc. , No. 05-01-00782- CV, 2002 WL 378398, at *1 (Tex. App. – Dallas Mar. 12, 2002, no pet.) (op., not desig nated for publication). Although the county co u rt , in ruling on Rowe’s plea to the jurisdiction, ag ree d that the orig inal appea l bond was defe ctive on its fac e, it r uled that Rowe’s letter notice of the defe ct dated J uly 17, 2008, was insuffic ient to trigg er the five-da y corr ection per iod a s the justice court did not pronounce the bond defe ctive but rathe r ap p ro v ed t he bond. Howeve r, we reje cted this identical arg ument in Ashley Furniture , noting that nothing in Rule 571 require s that a court first pronounce the bond defe ctive and issue the defe ctive notice itself befor e trig g ering the rule’s corr ection period. Ashley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 599. Rather, in rely ing on two previous case s, we found that notice of a defe ct in the bond by opposing counsel was sufficie nt to trig g er the five-da y corr ection period. Id

. at 599-600 (citing W atkins , 286 S.W .3d at 5 9 , 6 2 ; and Heldt v. 12811 El Sendero Trust # 0415022 , No. 04-04-00615- CV, 2005 WL 1458234, at *1 (Tex. App. – San Antonio J une 22, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op. not desig nated for publ ication)). Simi larly , here , bec au s e t he appeal bond

W a t k i n s d o e s n o t c o n t e n d o n a p p e a l t h a t s h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e d e f e c t i v e b o n d

. 1was cer

tainly defe ctive on its fac e by failing to contain two or more sureties as statutorily require d, Rowe’s notice of the defe ct was sufficie nt to trig g er the five-da y corr ection period. T E X . R. C I V . P. 571; Ashley Furniture , 311 S.W .3d at 599-600. B eca use Watkins did not corr ect her appe al bond within that time period, the county court lacke d jurisdiction over the case . Rowe’s first issue is sustained. CONCLUSION Having sustained Rowe’s first issue, we need not addre ss his rema ining points of err or. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 47.1. Accor dingly , we r ever se and va cate the county court’s judg ment in favor of Watkins, and reinstate the justice c ourt’s judg ment in favor of Rowe.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice Marc h 23, 2011 Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.