IN RE PHARR PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., PHARR PLANTATION INC., AND HEBLEN KANAN--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Hidalgo County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF NUMBER 13-11-00548-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE PHARR PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., PHARR PLANTATION INC., AND HEBLEN KANAN On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relators, Pharr Plantation Management Co., Ltd., Pharr Plantation, Inc., and Heblen Kanan, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on August 22, 2011, seeking to compel the trial court to set either a supersedeas bond or some type of alternative security so that relators could suspend enforcement of the trial courtâ s March 29, 2011 judgment. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest, Pharr Plantation Homeowners 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (â When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.â ); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). Association, Inc., Deâ Wayne De Ziel, Elaine De Ziel, Owen Bohnsack, Lee Albert, Maddy Mann, Fred Wiegand, Eva Maria Ellrich, George Rolando, Nathalie Watteau Vera, Rosie Reyna, Christine Cabrera, Paul Smith, Lila Reiser, George Johnston, Jim Woltz, Marjorie Nichols, Sandy Gonzalez, Peggy Boos, Norma Holiday, and David Coers. In addition to this original proceeding, relators have also brought an appeal of the underlying trial and judgment which has been docketed in this Court as appellate cause number 13-11-00282-CV. In that cause, relators filed a â Motion to Stay Judgment and Motion to Expedite Ruling Thereon.â Relators requested that we â stay the execution and enforcement of [the] trial courtâ s judgment pending the resolution [of] this appeal because the purported Rule 11 Agreement upon which the trial court [based] its judgment does not comply with the requirements of law and is unenforceable.â According to the motion, appellants had filed a motion with the trial court requesting that it suspend enforcement of the settlement agreement and judgment, but the trial court had not ruled on that motion. On June 23, 2011, we granted relatorsâ â Motion to Stay Judgment and Motion to Expedite Ruling Thereon.â See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c). We abated and remanded appellate cause number 13-11-00282-CV to the trial court for hearing and proceedings pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. See generally id. R. 24. We directed the trial court to cause notice of a hearing to be sent and hold a hearing on the issues presented pertinent to Rule 24. We directed that the trial courtâ s ruling and any findings and conclusions should be filed with this Court in the form of a supplemental clerkâ s record, and directed relators to further file a reporterâ s record of the hearing on 2 remand. We ordered that the supplemental clerkâ s record, reporterâ s record, and appellantsâ motion pertaining to these issues to be filed within thirty days of that order, and the real partiesâ response thereto to be filed within fifteen days thereafter. We informed the parties that the appeal would be reinstated upon further order of the Court. As of the date of todayâ s order, although the reporterâ s record has been filed, the supplemental clerkâ s record and appellantsâ motion has not. Review of a trial court's decision on supersedeas is more properly presented as a motion in the pending related appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a). We therefore conclude that relators have an adequate appellate remedy and are not entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428â 29 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Thus, the Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 12th day of January, 2012. 3