Dominique Reed and Dakota Hill v. Cypress Creek at South Cedar

ACCEPTED
15-25-00197-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/10/2025 12:20 PM
NO. 15-25-00197-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK

In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
DOMINIQUE REED and DAKOTA HILL,
11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Appellants Clerk

v.

CYPRESS CREEK AT SOUTH CEDAR,
Appellee

On appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Bell County, Texas,
Cause No. 25CCV01420
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION
TO STAY JUDGMENT AND WRIT OF POSSESSION
PENDING APPEAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY STAY
__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellee, CYPRESS CREEK AT SOUTH CEDAR, and

files its Response to Appellants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and Writ of

Possession Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dissolve Temporary

Stay and, in support thereof, would show unto the Court the following.

I.
INTRODUCTION

This appeal stems from a final judgment in a forcible detainer action. (CR

81). In relevant part, the final judgment states:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the said CYPRESS CREEK AT
SOUTH CEDAR have restitution of the said premises by midnight on
October 24, 2025, for which let Writ of Possession issue, to wit:
property located at:

460 S Cedar Road, Apt #11208 Temple, Texas 76502.

A PARTY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL TO THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS.

If the appeal is taken, monthly rent to be paid into the Registry of the
Court in the amount of $897.00 on the first day of the month. If the
monthly rent is not paid, Writ of Possession may issue without further
hearing.

Also, a Supersedeas Bond in the amount of $5,382.00 must be filed by
4:45 pm on October 24, 2025, in the County Clerk’s office located at
1201 Huey Rd, Belton, TX 76513 to stay a pending judgment.

(CR 81).

On October 20, 2025, Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal. (CR 97).

Appellants then filed their Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and Writ of

Possession Pending Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “Motion”) on October 29,

2025. The crux of Appellants’ Motion is that they do not currently have the financial

means to file the supersedeas bond. 1 On the same day, the Third Court of Appeals

granted the motion and “temporarily stay[ed] enforcement of the trial court’s

1
Appellants further challenges the validity of the final judgment. However, this goes to the
merits of Appellants’ appeal and has no bearing on her responsibility to file a supersedeas bond in
order to pursue her appeal.

2
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
judgment and execution of the writ of possession pending further orders of this

Court.” The Third Court of Appeals further requested Appellee to file a response to

the Motion by November 10, 2025. 2

As explained below, the Texas Property Code mandates that a final judgment

in a forcible detainer action cannot, under any circumstances, be stayed unless an

appellant first complies with her supersedeas bond requirements. As Appellants

have failed to do so, this Court should deny Appellants’ Motion and lift and/or

dissolve the temporary stay issued by the Third Court of Appeals.

II.
ARGUMENT

“A forcible detainer and detainer action is an eviction procedure to determine

the right to immediate possession of real property.” In re Callier, No. 12-24-00076-

CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 3361, *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 14, 2024, orig.

proceeding). It is a special proceeding intended to be a “speedy, simple, and

inexpensive means to obtain immediate possession of property.” Marshall v.

Housing Authority, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006); see also In re Callier, 2024

Tex. App. LEXIS 3361 at *4. Once a judgment in a forcible detainer action is

rendered, trial courts are given broad discretion in determining the amount and type

of security required. See Nemeth v. Mindful Home Ventures, No. 03-25-00377-CV,

2
In the interim, this appeal was transferred to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.
3
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3906, *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 5, 2025, no pet.) (citing

Hernandez v. U.S. Bank Tr. N.A., 527 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017,

no pet.) (explaining that trial court “is given broad discretion in determining the

amount and type of security required”); Stevenson v. Franklin Gardens Apartments,

511 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (stating that when setting

amount of supersedeas bond, the trial court may take into consideration value of

rents likely to accrue during appeal)).

More importantly, “[a] judgment of a county court may not under any

circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the

judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county

court.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007 (emphasis added). As this makes clear, an

“appellate court’s power to stay the judgment of the county court in a forcible

detainer action is limited; it is only empowered to stay the judgment of the county

court in a forcible detainer action if a supersedeas bond has been filed.” See Nemeth,

2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3906 at *2 (quoting Usatequi v. Meller, No. 04-05-00324-

CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 582, 2006 WL 166436, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Jan. 25, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.)); see also Coleman v. Pflugerville Wells Branch,

LLC, No. 03-24-00765-CV, 2025 WL 352186, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 31,

2012, order). Finally, an appellant’s asserted indigence is not a basis for forgoing

the requirement of a supersedeas bond. See Morse v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No.

4
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
05-18-00999-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 8115, 2018 WL 4784585, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Callier, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS

3361 at *4 (“[i]ndigence does not relieve a party of the obligation to file a

supersedeas bond”).

As Appellants have failed to comply with the supersedeas bond requirements,

there is no legal basis for this Court to stay the county court’s judgment.

Accordingly, Appellants’ Motion should be denied, and the temporary stay should

be lifted and/or dissolved. See Nemeth, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3906 at *3 (“Given

that Nemeth has not complied with the supersedeas requirements set out in the trial

court’s final judgment, we dissolve our prior order granting temporary emergency

relief and staying any writ of possession or garnishment.”); see also Cave v.

Kensington Apts. Austin, LP, No. 03-24-00442-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6063, *2

(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 21, 2024, no pet.) (“Even if it had not been rendered moot,

we would lift the stay in light of the information provided by Kensington Apartments

in its response about Cave’s failure to post the supersedeas bond … [and] [w]e deny

Cave’s July 17, 2024 Emergency Motion to Stay or Recall Writ of Possession.”);

Coleman v. Pflugerville Wells Branch, LLC, No. 03-24-00765-CV, 2025 WL 352186,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 31, 2012, order) (dissolving order granting temporary

stay when supersedeas bond requirements were not met).

5
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
III.
PRAYER

Appellee, CYPRESS CREEK AT SOUTH CEDAR, respectfully prays that

the Honorable Court deny Appellants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and

Writ of Possession Pending Appeal, lift and/or dissolve the temporary stay issued by

the Third Court of Appeals, and grant any other relief to which it is entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP

/s/ Joshua Anderson______________
Joshua Anderson
State Bar No. 24027198
anderson@hooverslovacek.com
Richard Alexander Barclay
State Bar No. 24125110
barclay@hooverslovacek.com
Galleria Tower II
5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 977-8686
Facsimile: (713) 977-5395

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,
CYPRESS CREEK AT SOUTH
CEDAR

6
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, I hereby certify that on
this the 10th of November 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
via electronic filing, to all counsel of record.

Dakota Hill
P.O. Box 12108 MC068
Austin, Texas 78711

Dominique Reed
P.O. Box 12108 MC068
Austin, Texas 78711

/s/ Joshua Anderson
Joshua Anderson

7
4905-1895-4104, v. 1
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Brooke Broderick on behalf of Joshua Anderson
Bar No. 24027198
broderick@hooverslovacek.com
Envelope ID: 107860988
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: Appellee Cypress Creek at South Cedar's Response to
Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment and Writ of Possession
Status as of 11/10/2025 12:22 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Brooke Broderick broderick@hooverslovacek.com 11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM SENT

Alex Barclay barclay@hooverslovacek.com 11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM SENT

Christy Case manager.ccsc@bonnercarrington.com 11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM SENT

Dominique ACReed dominique.ac.reed@outlook.com 11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM SENT

Joshua Anderson janderson@hooverslovacek.com 11/10/2025 12:20:41 PM ERROR