COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Tarris Woods v. Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr.

Appellate case number: 01-14-01030-CV

Trial court case number: PR-0075144

Trial court: Probate Court of Galveston County

Appellant, Tarris Woods, appeals from an “Order Probating Last Will and Testament as a 

Muniment of Title” and has filed a (1) “Motion to Take Judicial Notice,” (2) “Motion for 

Temporary Order Staying Enforcement of the Judgment,” and (3) “Motion for Review of 

Excessive Supersedeas Bond.” Appellees, Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr., have 

responded to Woods’s motions for a temporary order and review of the supersedeas bond.

In the motion for review of supersedeas bond, Woods contends that the probate court 

abused its discretion in ordering Woods to file a bond or cash deposit in lieu of bond in the 

amount of $30,500.00 to supersede the probate court’s order. On any party’s motion, we may 

review the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount security and the trial court’s exercise of 

discretion in setting the amount of security. TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4; TierOne Converged Networks, 

Inc. v. Lavon Water Supply Corp., No. 05-13-00370-CV, 2013 WL 6727876, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(3) (providing when 

judgment for something other than money or interest in property, “security must adequately 

protect the judgment debtor or creditor against loss or damage that the appeal might cause”); 

Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, 333 S.W.3d 255, 262 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2010, pet. dism’d) (quoting Muniz v. Vasquez, 797 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1990, no writ)) (“The goal in setting the supersedeas bond is to require an amount 

which will ‘adequately protect the judgment creditor against any loss or damage occasioned by 

the appeal.’”).

Here, Woods made a cash deposit of $6500.00 in lieu of filing a supersedeas bond. After 

Kenner objected to Woods’s cash deposit, the probate court held a hearing and signed an order 

setting the security amount at $30,500.00. The portion of that hearing record that Woods 

included as an exhibit to the motion indicates that Kenner testified at the hearing. Woods, 

however, has not provided a complete record of that hearing and we do not have a sufficient 

basis upon which to review the probate court’s order. See LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 
261 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also Knowles v. Mack, 

No. 04-04-00422-CV, 2004 WL 2046612, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 15, 2004, no 

pet.) (mem. op.) (“Without a record of the evidence the trial court considered in deciding 

whether the amount of the bond would likely cause Knowles substantial economic harm, we 

cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Knowles’ written motion to 

reduce the amount of security.”). Accordingly, Wood’s Motion for Review of Excessive 

Supersedeas Bond is denied.

Woods also has filed a motion seeking a temporary order staying enforcement of the 

probate court’s order. An appellate court reviewing a trial court’s decision on supersedeas “may 

issue any temporary order necessary to preserve the parties’ rights.” TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c). 

Having denied Woods’s motion for review of the supersedeas bond, the “Motion for Temporary 

Order Staying Enforcement of the Judgment” is denied.

In conjunction with these motions, Woods has filed a motion requesting the Court to take 

judicial notice of portions of the clerk’s record filed in this appeal. The motion is granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually 

Date: July 9, 2015