Court Opinion

ID: 9908714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 17:10:17.662922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:27.603570
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued December 5, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-23-00701-CV
                            ———————————
               SAMURAI MARTIAL SPORTS INC., Appellant
                                        V.
                      CRE PROPERTIES INC., Appellee

             On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1204081

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Samurai Martial Sports Inc., filed a notice of appeal from a

September 19, 2023 trial court order setting a supersedeas bond in the amount of

$19,000 per month to be paid by appellant “for the duration of the abatement” of the

underlying trial court case. On October 27, 2023, appellee, CRE Properties, Inc.,
filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” arguing that this Court lacks

jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal because the order being appealed is an

interlocutory order.

      We grant CRE’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      The underlying trial court case arose out of a dispute regarding the January 3,

2023 foreclosure of property located at 12500 Oxford Park Drive, Houston, Texas

77077 (the “Property”). On or around January 19, 2023, CRE initiated a forcible

detainer action in Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 5, Place 1 of Harris County,

asserting that, despite the foreclosure of the Property, appellant remained in

wrongful possession of the Property. After a hearing on CRE’s eviction proceeding,

the justice court entered an eviction order on March 14, 2023, ordering that CRE

was entitled to possession of the Property. However, the justice court further ordered

that an “appeal bond [was] set at $1,000.00.”

      Also, on March 14, 2023, appellant appealed the justice court’s order to the

County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County (the “county court case”). The

appellate record further reflects that on March 15, 2023, appellant paid the $1,000

appeal bond set by the justice court. After appealing the justice court’s order of

eviction, appellant also filed a separate lawsuit against CRE, among others, in the

165th District Court of Harris County (the “district court case”). In the district court

case, appellant alleged that there was a title dispute related to the Property and that
the Property had been wrongfully foreclosed. Appellant brought claims for statutory

fraud, wrongful foreclosure, suit to quiet title, and trespass to try title.

       According to CRE’s motion to dismiss, at a “hearing on the appeal from the

eviction” in county court case, “the county court indicated that it would abate the

[c]ounty [c]ourt [c]ase pending resolution of the [d]istrict [c]ourt [c]ase.” On July

12, 2023, CRE filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and in the Alternative, Motion

to Increase the Bond.” In that motion, CRE asserted that an abatement of the county

court case was unnecessary and the appeal from the eviction proceeding could

proceed despite appellant’s filing of the district court case.

       Alternatively, if the county court remained “inclined to abate th[e] matter until

the [d]istrict [c]ourt [c]ase [was] resolved,” “CRE request[ed] an increase in the

supersedeas bond” set by the justice court. Specifically, CRE requested an increased

appeal bond in the amount of “12 months of rental value for the Property . . . to

protect [CRE] from the damages incurred while [the county court case was] abated.”

CRE noted that the current trial setting in the district court case was May 13, 2024.

       On July 13, 2023, appellant filed a response to CRE’s “Motion for

Reconsideration and in the Alternative, Motion to Increase the Bond,” asserting that

the county court properly abated the county court case and the county court should

not increase the appeal bond. According to appellant, the county court “should not
second guess whether” the appeal bond set by the justice court “was accurate or

[otherwise] disturb” that ruling.

      On September 19, 2023, the county court entered an order setting an appeal

bond in the amount of $19,000 per month “for the duration of the abatement” of the

county court case, with the first payment to be due on October 1, 2023. On

September 28, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the county court’s

September 19, 2023 order.

      This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments

and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable

orders. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. An order setting an appeal bond for

the appeal of an eviction proceeding has not been specifically designated as an

appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014;

see also Reynolds v. Garcia, No. 05-08-01453-CV, 2009 WL 765498, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Mar. 25, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of county court

“order directing appellant to post the required appeal bond” in appeal from forcible

detainer judgment of justice court to county court).

      Because appellant has appealed from an interlocutory order and has not

identified a statute—and we have found none—that would authorize an interlocutory

appeal from the county court’s September 19, 2023 order, we conclude that we lack
jurisdiction over the appeal. See Reynolds, 2009 WL 765498, at *1 (“An order

requiring appellant to post an appeal bond to proceed with an appeal to a county

court at law from the justice court is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable

interlocutory order.”).

      CRE filed its motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on October

27, 2023. More than ten days have passed, and appellant has not filed a response to

the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

      Accordingly, we grant CRE’s motion, and dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed

as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.