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)
Download as PDF
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.
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 court’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
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Association, Inc., De’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
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 “Motion to Stay Judgment and
Motion to Expedite Ruling Thereon.” Relators requested that we “stay the execution
and enforcement of [the] trial court’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.”
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 relators’ “Motion to Stay Judgment and Motion to
Expedite Ruling Thereon.” 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 court’s ruling and any
findings and conclusions should be filed with this Court in the form of a supplemental
clerk’s record, and directed relators to further file a reporter’s record of the hearing on
We ordered that the supplemental clerk’s record, reporter’s record, and
appellants’ motion pertaining to these issues to be filed within thirty days of that order,
and the real parties’ 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 today’s order, although the reporter’s record has been filed, the
supplemental clerk’s record and appellants’ 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, 428–29 (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).
Delivered and filed the
12th day of January, 2012.