Tarris Woods v. Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-14-01030-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/16/2015 4:09:26 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
No. 01-14-01030-CV
________________________________________________________________
IN THE FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
FOR THE 6/16/2015 4:09:26 PM
FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
HOUSTON, TEXAS
_________________________________________________________________
TARRIS WOODS, Appellant
v.
SANDRA T. KENNER AND CHARLES E. TWYMON, JR., Appellees
_________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR REVIEW OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND
To the Honorable Court of Appeals:
Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr., Appellees, oppose the motion
by Appellant, Tarris Woods, for this Court’s review of the trial court’s order
establishing the Appellant’s supersedeas bond, for these reasons:
I.
The Appellant would have the Court review the trial court’s decision as to the
amount of supersedeas bond to be filed by the Appellant. This is an appeal from an
order admitting a Will to probate as a muniment of title, requiring the trial court to
set that bond amount. Tex. R. App. P. 24.
II.
Review of a trial court ruling pertaining to appellate security is by motion to
this Court, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. This Court reviews that determination
under an abuse of discretion standard. Business Staffing, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil
Service, 392 S.W.3d 183, 186 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, pet. denied). This appellate
review implies “a two-pronged analysis: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient
information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its
application of discretion?” Id.
In determining whether the trial court had sufficient information to support its
exercise of discretion, the traditional standards utilized to review legal and factual
sufficiency of the evidence are invoked. Id. For these reasons, appellate review of the
trial court’s order establishing the amount of supersedeas bond requires that the
movant provide this Court with a sufficient record upon which to review the trial
court’s decision. See LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 229 S.W.3d 469, 481
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied), where this Court noted that the
motion initially filed in that case had been denied, because of the failure to provide
that record, and Montelongo v. Exit Stage Left, Inc., 293 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Tex.
App.—El Paso, 2009, no pet.), addressing the merits of a similar motion, “[a]fter a
review of the law, the briefs, and the record.”
In this case, the Appellant submitted an appendix to his motion which appears
to be a transcript of a portion of the proceedings below. However, that transcript
appears to be limited to the trial court’s announcement of its ruling, and does not
-2-
include any of the evidence actually presented and upon which the trial court’s
decision was actually based. Thus, and as in LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke,
supra, the Appellant has not presented the record upon which this Court must conduct
the review which the Appellants seeks.
For the reasons stated, Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr.,
Appellees, pray that the Court deny the Appellant’s Motion for Review of
Supersedeas Bond.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Thomas W McQuage
Thomas W. McQuage
Post Office Box 16894
Galveston, Texas 77552-6894
(409) 762-1104
(409) 762-4005 (FAX)
State Bar No. 13849400
mcquage@swbell.net
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was delivered to counsel for
the Appellees on the 16th day of June, 2015, by serving Douglas T. Godinich, through
the Efile.TX Courts electronic service.
/s/Thomas W McQuage
-3-