1 Relator presumes that a ma ndamus petition add ressed to this courtis the proper

remedy for relief from the di strict cl erk’s refusal to approve t he bond. Under R ule 24.3 of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure, even after its plenary

power ex pires, the trial court has continuing jurisdict ion to order o r modi fy the amount and ty pe of security and decide the sufficiency of su reties. We expres s no opin ion whether the trial court’s conti nuing authority provides a remedy at l aw, thereby precluding mandamus relief. NO. 07-06-0046-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D FEBRUARY

6, 2006

______________________________ IN RE DOR ETTA MOORE, RELATOR

_________________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION
Relator Doretta Moor

e requests issuance of a w rit of mandamus 1 directin g th e Roberts Count

y Distric t Clerk to approve the s upersedeas bond relator hassubmitted to the clerk. Relator has a lso reques ted temporary relief. We will deny

relator’s petition.
“Manda mus issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the viola tion of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.” Johnson v. Four th Court of Appeals , 700 S.W .2d 9 16, 9 17 (T ex. 1985). Relator per fected an appeal from the underlyin g judgment render ed against her

in the 31 st Distric

t Court of Rober

ts County. Her2

appeal is pending under our docket no. 07-04-055 6-CV , thereby invoking this Court’s jurisdict ion over the ent ire controversy. M iles v. For

d Motor Co. , 914 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex. 1995). We have jurisdi ction to issue writs of mandamus and a ll other writs necessary to enforce the jur isdiction of thecourt. T EX . G O V’T C ODE A NN . § 22.221.
To support her petition, relator re lies upon th is court’s opinion in Ruiz

v. Watkins , 701 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.App.–Amarill o 1985, no writ), in which we found that a district clerk’s refusal to approve asupersedeas bond was an abuse of discretion. In Ru iz , the co urt found that ver ified d ocumentary proof subm itted to the clerk clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the proposed sureties ha d good and ample, no nexempt and unencumbere d property subject to execution of an amount lar ger than that of the bond

. Ruiz , 701 S.W.2d at691. In the casebefore us, however, the di strict cl erk was provided onlythree items r

egarding the proposed sur ety’s financ ial status: (1) a June 6, 2005 letter from the president of his bank indicat ing the amount deposite d in the proposed surety’s checking acco unt a s of that date and ( 2) two stock portfolio summaries dated A pril 2005. So far as the record befor e us indicates , the clerk was prov ided no information reg arding the proposed surety’s liabilit ies, the curr ent status of the three accounts mentioned above, whether the same assets are subject to the community property laws or other claims

under law, or whether

there are other

surety bon ds based on the same assets. See Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew Pro fessional Co rp. , 80 S.W.3d 161, 165-66 (Tex .App.–Fort Worth 2002, no p et.) (t rial court did not abuse its discretion in determ ining that Miller’s supersedeas bond did not adeq uatel y protect Mins hew from loss or damage duri ng the pendency of Miller’s appeal). The inform ation submitted to the clerkhere falls shor t of that3

described in Ruiz , and the distri ct clerk di d n ot abuse her dis cretion in find ing the bond insufficient. Johnson , 700 S.W.2d at 917; Ruiz , 701 S.W.2d at 691.
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denie d. Her requestfor temporary relief is, therefore, moot

and denied.

Per Curiam