Mary Decker v. Clifford Homes, LLC ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-15-00393-CV
5933580
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
7/6/2015 7:18:43 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-15-00393-CV
__________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
7/6/2015 7:18:43 AM
__________________________________________________________________
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
MARY DECKER AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF
1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,
Appellants,
v.
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,
Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF
WRIT
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. J. Hyde
Texas Bar No. 24027083
THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC
111 E. 17th Street #12015
Austin, TX 78711
Telephone: (512) 200-4080
Fax: (512) 582-8295
E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Counsel for Appellee
No. 03-15-00393-CV
__________________________________________________________________
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
__________________________________________________________________
MARY DECKER AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF
1607 MAIN STREET, CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613,
Appellants,
v.
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC,
Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF
WRIT
__________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellee Clifford Homes, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds to the Emergency Motion for Stay of Writ (“Motion”) filed
by Appellant Mary Decker, and in support thereof states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In a nutshell, Decker’s Motion seeks to stay issuance of a writ of
possession until the trial court sets a supersedeas bond—an event that took place
2
before the Motion was filed. Decker’s request is moot, and the stay issued by this
Court on 2 July 2015 should be lifted.
BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT
2. In this post-foreclosure forcible detainer action, the trial court
rendered a final judgment of possession in favor of Clifford Homes on 23 June
2015 following a summary-judgment hearing. (See Attachment B to Motion).
That judgment is on appeal in this proceeding.
3. On June 25, Decker filed a “Motion for Bond Application” in the trial
court. (See Attachment C to Motion).1 On June 29, Clifford Homes filed a
response to that motion. (See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Bond
Application and Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond Is Set,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
4. On June 29 and 30, counsel for the parties communicated via e-mail
with the county court administrator regarding Decker’s Bond Application. (See
Attachment E to Motion; see also E-mails attached hereto as Exhibit 2). In
response to the court administrator’s request, on June 30 the undersigned e-mailed
the administrator copies of Decker’s application and Clifford Homes’ response,
along with each party’s proposed order. (See Exhibit 2). In the e-mail, the
1
Decker asserts in the Motion that she requested that the trial court set a bond at the conclusion of the
summary-judgment hearing and that the trial court “refused” to do so. (See Motion, at ¶ 5). But the trial
court’s “refusal” was not arbitrary, as Decker suggests. The trial court merely informed the parties that he
was not setting a bond at that time because no bond application had been filed.
3
undersigned reiterated the importance of a speedy ruling in light of the Property
Code’s strict deadline for superseding eviction judgments. (See id.).
5. The next day, July 1, the trial court signed and filed an order ruling on
Decker’s Bond Application and setting the type and amount of security required to
suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. (See Order, attached hereto
as Exhibit 3).
6. On July 2, the undersigned checked the case docket and, seeing the
order reflected, requested and obtained a copy from the clerk’s office via e-mail.
(See e-mail from A. Wiseman to J. Hyde, attached hereto as Exhibit 4). Later that
day, Decker filed the underlying Motion without conferring with Clifford Homes,
and the Court entered a stay order shortly thereafter. Had Decker checked the
docket or conferred with the undersigned before filing the Motion, she would have
learned that the Motion was moot before she filed it.2
7. Although somewhat beyond the scope of the Motion, Clifford Homes
notes that the trial court’s July 1 order on the Bond Application is proper on its
merits. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to suspend enforcement of the trial
court’s judgment while an appeal is pending. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(f). In
2
As this Court noted in its July 2 Order, Decker’s Motion, though styled a petition for writ of mandamus,
“is actually a motion in a pending appeal.” As such, the Motion was required to contain a certificate
stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about
the merits of the motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). Decker made no such attempt to confer, and the
Motion did not contain a certificate of conference (although one was inexplicably referenced in the Table
of Contents).
4
eviction suits like the one at issue, in setting the bond “the county court shall
provide protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, taking
into consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during appeal, damages which
may occur as a result of the stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as
the court may deem appropriate.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a); see also TEX. R.
APP. P. 24.2(a)(2) (requiring that the amount of security to suspend enforcement of
judgments “for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property” be at least
“the value of the property interest’s rent or revenue”).
8. The trial court appropriately set the appellate security in accordance
with the parameters of the Property Code and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
(See Exhibits 1 & 3). Decker may suspend enforcement of the judgment by
depositing the ordered security into the registry of the county court no later than 6
July 2015. TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a) (“A judgment of a county court in an
eviction suit 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.”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2)
(“When the judgment is for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property,
the trial court will determine the type of security that the judgment debtor must
post.”).
5
9. Clifford Homes would also note that the underlying appeal of the trial
court’s summary judgment is itself frivolous, as it involves an argument (often
made by the same attorney) that this Court has rejected multiple times in the past
few years. Specifically, Decker argued on summary judgment that a title dispute—
in the form of a challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale of the Property to
Clifford Homes—deprived Clifford Homes of the right to immediate possession,
even though the foreclosed deed of trust established a landlord-tenant relationship.
See, e.g., Wilder v. Citicorp Trust Bank, F.S.B., No. 03-13-00324-CV, 2014 WL
1207979 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (noting
that this Court “has consistently held that defects in the foreclosure process cannot
be used either to negate a landlord-tenant relationship provision in a deed of trust
or to raise a question of title depriving the justice or county courts of jurisdiction to
resolve the question of immediate possession”); see also Killebrew v. BKE
Investments, Inc., No. 03-13-00149-CV, 2014 WL 3055984 (Tex. App.—Austin
June 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Jaimes v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n,
No. 03-13-00290-CV, 2013 WL 7809741 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 4, 2013, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Reardean v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 03-12-
00562-CV, 2013 WL 4487523 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (same). Decker should not be permitted to continue to occupy the Property
6
while prosecuting a frivolous appeal without depositing the requisite security as
ordered by the trial court.
10. In sum, Decker’s Motion is moot, and the stay should be lifted. The
trial court properly ruled on Decker’s Bond Application, and it is up to her to
supersede the judgment while this appeal is pending.
WHEREFORE, Clifford Homes respectfully requests that the Court LIFT
the stay of the writ of possession entered on 2 July 2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ J. Hyde
______________________________
Dr. J. Hyde
State Bar No. 24027083
THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC
111 E. 17th Street #12015
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 200-4080
Fax: (512) 582-8295
E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Attorney for Appellee
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and
Local Rule 4(d), a copy of Appellee’s Response to Emergency Motion for Stay of
Writ was served on this 6th day of July, 2015, via e-service, upon the following:
David Rogers
1201 Spyglass, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
/s/ J. Hyde
______________________________
Dr. J. Hyde
8
EXHIBIT 1
Response to Bond Application
Filed: 6/29/2015 10:50:33 AM
Nancy E. Rister, County Clerk
Williamson County, Texas
By: Regina Cockrell, Deputy Clerk
CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
MARY DECKER, § NUMBER 4
CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or §
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF §
1607 MAIN STREET, §
CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, §
§
Defendants. § WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND
APPLICATION AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF
POSSESSION UNTIL BOND IS SET
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds to Defendant’s Motion for Bond Application and Motion to Stay
Writ of Possession (“Motion”), and in support thereof states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This is a post-foreclosure forcible detainer action. Eleven months ago, Plaintiff
Clifford Homes purchased the subject property at the August 2014 Williamson County
foreclosure auction. Following Defendant-induced delays in the eviction proceedings in
the Justice Court that necessitated mandamus relief, this Court signed a final judgment
granting Clifford Homes immediate possession of the Property, and Decker has appealed.
Now, after eleven months of living rent- and mortgage-free, Defendant Decker requests
that the Court set a supersedeas bond in the nominal amount of $500.00, summarily
asserting that her net worth is -$88,040.66. In making this request, Decker cites
inapplicable authority that relates only to money judgments, makes unsupported
assertions about her net worth, provides no information about her monthly income, and
simply provides no support for the amount requested. As demonstrated below, the Court
should set the amount of the security necessary to supersede the judgment at $31,365.00,
which properly takes into account the reasonable rental value of the Property as required
by applicable law.
BACKGROUND
1. On 23 June 2015, the Court granted Clifford Homes’ motion for summary
judgment and rendered a final judgment awarding Clifford Homes immediate possession
of the real property located at 1607 Main Street, Cedar Park, Texas 78613. (See Ex. A to
Decker’s Motion).
2. Clifford Homes had purchased the Property at the 5 August 2014
foreclosure sale in Williamson County and initially filed the underlying forcible detainer
action in Justice Court seeking immediate possession of the Property on 7 October 2014.
The Justice Court rendered a final judgment in Decker’s favor on 2 April 2015, leading to
Clifford Homes’ appeal and this Court’s summary judgment on June 23.
3. The case had remained pending for an extended period in the Justice Court
because that court erroneously abated the case pending the outcome of a separate suit that
Decker filed in Williamson County District Court (the “Title Suit”) challenging the
validity of the foreclosure sale. This forced Clifford Homes to file a petition for writ of
2
mandamus, which this Court granted. (See Exs. 7 & 8 to Clifford Homes’ Traditional
Motion for Summary Judgment).
4. Decker has timely filed a notice of appeal from this Court’s final judgment.
5. In her Motion to set the bond, Decker asserts that undersigned counsel “has
stated that there is no amount of bond that his client would accept.” (Motion, at n.3).
Quite simply, that assertion is false. The undersigned has never made that or any similar
statement, which would be nonsensical and in contravention of the statutes and rules
governing supersedeas bonds. What the undersigned has stated to opposing counsel is
that his client would not accept a security amount that does not take into account the
rental value of the Property while the appeal is pending. That statement is consistent with
the arguments made herein and, more importantly, with applicable law.
ARGUMENT
6. Suspension of enforcement of eviction judgments is governed by Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and Texas Property Code section 24.007. Rule 24.1
allows a debtor to suspend enforcement of a judgment by, inter alia, filing “a good and
sufficient bond” or “making a deposit with the trial court clerk in lieu of a bond.” TEX. R.
APP. P. 24.1(a)(2), (3). However, “[w]hen the judgment is for the recovery of an interest
in real or personal property, the trial court will determine the type of security that the
judgment debtor must post.” TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2). Rule 24 further allows the trial
court to “make any order necessary to adequately protect the judgment creditor against
loss or damage that the appeal might cause.” TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(e).
3
7. Importantly, section 24.007, which expressly governs forcible-detainer
appeals and which Decker conveniently failed to cite in her Motion, requires that any
security be posted “within 10 days of the signing of the judgment” and that it “provide
protection for the appellee to the same extent as in any other appeal, taking into
consideration the value of rents likely to accrue during appeal, damages which may occur
as a result of the stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as the court may
deem appropriate.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a).
8. Decker cites Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 52.006 and Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(1) to argue that the amount of security may not exceed 50
percent of her net worth. Those provisions, however, expressly apply only to money
judgments. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 52.006(b) (“[W]hen a judgment is for
money, the amount of security must not exceed … 50 percent of the judgment debtor’s
net worth[.]”); TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(1) (“When the judgment is for money, the amount
of the bond … must not exceed … 50 percent of the judgment debtor’s current net
worth[.]”). By contrast, Property Code section 24.007, cited above, applies to forcible
detainer judgments. Consistent with that provision, Rule 24.2(a)(2) applies to judgments
“for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property” and states that the amount of
the security “must be at least … the value of the property interest’s rent or revenue.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). Unlike with money judgments, the amount
of security for a judgment for an interest in real property is not capped by the judgment
debtor’s net worth.
4
9. Accordingly, Decker’s contention that she has a negative net worth is
irrelevant to the proper amount of appellate security in this case. Even if it were relevant,
the evidence submitted in support of that contention is conclusory at best. Decker states
in an affidavit that she has total assets of $2,612 ($1,612 in bank accounts and cash, $750
in appliances and furniture, and $250 in home furnishings) and total liabilities of
$90,652.66 ($250 in credit card debt, $40,402.66 for an outstanding loan from NationStar,
and $50,000 in student loans). Leaving aside that these numbers appear a bit random, no
documentation was submitted in support of these amounts. The lack of documentation is
particularly troubling given Decker’s past readiness to provide bank statements to the
Court when she believes it supports her position. Because Decker’s net worth has no
bearing on the proper security amount, and because, in any event, she has failed to submit
competent evidence in support of her net worth, Decker’s request to set the amount of
appellate security at $500 lacks merit and should be rejected.
10. Instead, the Court should set the supersedeas amount in accordance with
Property Code section 24.007 and Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(2) by taking into
consideration the rental value of the Property while the appeal is pending. As shown by
the affidavit of Kenneth Ward attached as Exhibit 1, and the Comparative Market
Analysis attached as Exhibit 2,1 the current fair market rental value of the Property is
$1,845.00 per month. Further, publicly available information from the Third Court of
1
The Comparative Market Analysis is admissible as a business record. The affidavit of Kenneth Ward
establishes that: (1) the record was made and kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity,
(2) it was the regular practice of the business activity to make the record, (3) the record was made at or
near the time of the event that it memorializes, and (4) the record was made by a person with knowledge
who was acting in the regular course of business. TEX. R. EVID. 803(6).
5
Appeals regarding eight recently concluded appeals of post-foreclosure forcible-detainer
judgments shows that these appeals were pending for an average of 17 months (from date
of filing notice of appeal to date of mandate). The spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit
3 summarizes the information underlying this fact, which may be judicially noticed. TEX.
R. EVID. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it … can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”).2
11. Multiplying the average number of months (17) by the Property’s monthly
rental value ($1,845.00) yields a total of $31,365.00. This is the reasonable, necessary,
and proper amount to protect Clifford Homes’ interest in the Property while the appeal is
pending.
12. To the extent equity is a consideration, it is worth reiterating that Decker
has been living in the Property for free for eleven months, and now seeks to go on living
basically for free while she appeals the judgment granting Clifford Homes immediate
possession. This is not a result contemplated by the supersedeas rules. Further, it
undercuts the purpose served by the statutory scheme governing forcible-detainer actions,
which the Legislature enacted “to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy for
determination of who is entitled to immediate possession of property.” Dormady v.
Dinero Land & Cattle Co., 61 S.W.3d 555, 558 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet.
dism’d w.o.j.) (citing Scott v. Hewitt, 127 Tex. 31, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936)). What
2
The docket information verifying the information in the spreadsheet is available on the Third Court of
Appeals’ official website, accessible at http://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx.
6
should have been a speedy and inexpensive route to possession has become a lengthy and
expensive one. Clifford Homes has owned the Property for almost a year and has been
responsible for the burdens of ownership—such as purchase price (which was paid in full
at the foreclosure sale), property insurance, and taxes—but has been deprived of all the
benefits with no meaningful way to recover for that lost time. Conversely, Decker has
had the benefit of possession all this time even though she no longer owns the Property,
is no longer paying for it, and has no right to occupy it. To allow this state of affairs to
continue for an additional 17 (basically rent-free) months is far from equitable.
13. Decker accuses Clifford Homes of seeking a security amount that would
“shut the courthouse door and force the Defendant to give up her home” without the
opportunity to appeal. (Motion, at ¶ 6). That is simply not the case. Decker has already
commenced the appellate process by filing a notice of appeal. She also continues to
pursue the Title Suit. Any harm to Decker is not irreversible, and it is unclear how
Decker is harmed merely because she may not continue to live rent-free.
14. Finally, Clifford Homes notes that setting the security amount at or
anywhere near the incredibly low amount requested by Decker is particularly inequitable
given the frivolous nature of her appeal. Decker’s only challenge to Clifford Homes’
right to possession is that alleged defects in the foreclosure process purportedly rendered
the foreclosure sale of the Property to Clifford Homes invalid. That is the exact issue
being independently litigated in the Title Suit, and the law could not be more clear that
“defects in the foreclosure process cannot be used either to negate a landlord-tenant
relationship provision in a deed of trust or to raise a question of title depriving the justice
7
or county courts of jurisdiction to resolve the question of immediate possession.” Wilder
v. Citicorp Trust Bank, F.S.B., No. 03-13-00324-CV, 2014 WL 1207979 (Tex. App.—
Austin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (mem. op.); see also, e.g., Killebrew v. BKE
Investments, Inc., No. 03-13-00149-CV, 2014 WL 3055984 (Tex. App.—Austin June 30,
2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Jaimes v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass’n, No. 03-13-00290-
CV, 2013 WL 7809741 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same);
Reardean v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 03-12-00562-CV, 2013 WL 4487523
(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2013, no pet.) (same); Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No.
03-10-00093-CV, 2011 WL 182122 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 6, 2011, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (same).
15. Allowing Decker to suspend enforcement of the judgment of possession for
almost nothing in order to pursue a frivolous appeal merely encourages frivolous appeals.
Clifford Homes is entitled to have the appellate security set at an amount that protects its
rights under the judgment the Court has rendered. It seeks nothing more and nothing less.
And its request is supported by the Property Code, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and
the evidence.
16. A brief response to Decker’s Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession
is warranted. The Property Code is clear: “A judgment of a county court in an eviction
suit 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(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
8
writ of possession may be issued on 7 July 2015 if Decker has not yet posted supersedeas
in an amount set by the court.
17. To Clifford Homes’ knowledge, Decker has neither requested nor set a
hearing on her Motion for Bond Application. Clifford Homes stands on its written
submission, but is prepared to participate in a hearing if set.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Clifford Homes respectfully requests that the Court set the
amount of security required to supersede the judgment at $31,365.00. Clifford Homes
further requests that Defendant be required to deposit $31,365.00 in cash into the registry
of the Court no later than 6 July 2015 (the tenth day following the entry of judgment) in
order to supersede the judgment pending appeal.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ J. Hyde
________________________________
Dr. J. Hyde
State Bar No. 24027083
THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC
111 E. 17th Street #12015
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 200-4080
Fax: (512) 582-8295
E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, on this 29th day of June, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
been served upon all parties of record via e-service or facsimile:
David Rogers
1201 Spyglass, Suite 100
Austin, Texas 78746
Fax: (512) 201-4082
/s/ J. Hyde
________________________________
Dr. J. Hyde
10
CAUSE NO. 15-0508-CC4
CLIFFORD HOMES, LLC, § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
MARY DECKER, § NUMBER 4
CHRISTOPHER DECKER, and/or §
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF §
1607 MAIN STREET, §
CEDAR PARK, TEXAS 78613, §
§
Defendants. § WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER ON DEFENDANT MARY DECKER’S MOTION FOR BOND
APPLICATION AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY WRIT OF
POSSESSION UNTIL BOND IS SET
The Court rendered a final judgment of immediate possession in this action in
favor of Plaintiff on 23 June 2015. Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Bond
Application and Motion to Stay Writ of Possession Until Bond Is Set. Having reviewed
the parties’ arguments and evidence, and being fully advised, the Court finds that,
pursuant to TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007 and TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(2), the amount of
security that Defendant must post to stay the final judgment in this action pending appeal
is $31,365.00.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007(a),
Defendant must deposit $31,365.00 in cash into the registry of the Court no later than the
close of business on Monday, 6 July 2015, in order to suspend enforcement of the above-
referenced judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Writ of Possession
Until Bond Is Set is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Signed this _______ day of ______________, 2015
_________________________________
Honorable Judge Presiding
EXHIBIT 1
Affidavit of Ken Ward
EXHIBIT 2
Comparative Market Analysis
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
Summary of Comparable Listings
This page summarizes the comparable listings contained in this market analysis.
Leased Listings
Address Price Bds Bth Sqft Tot Acres Lease Date CDOM ADOM
1607 Main ST 1999 0.226
609 Brazos Bend DR $1,700 3 2 1,726 0.115 05/23/2015 11 11
1802 Garner DR $1,700 4 2 1,710 0.117 05/14/2015 6 6
1804 Discovery BLVD $2,000 4 2 2,327 0.185 06/05/2015 17 17
Averages: $1,800 3.7 2.0 1,921 0.139 11 11
Low Median Average High Count
Comparable Price $1,700 $1,700 $1,800 $2,000 3
Adjusted Comparable Price $1,836 $1,846 $1,845 $1,854 3
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Price Adjustments
This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties.
Subject Property Details Adjust Details Adjust
1607 Main ST 609 Brazos Bend DR 1802 Garner DR
MLS# 5220424 2921298
Status Leased Leased
List Price $1,700 $1,700
List Date 04/20/2015 05/08/2015
Sold Price $1,700 $1,700
Sold Date 05/23/2015 05/14/2015
City Cedar Park Cedar Park 0 Cedar Park 0
Subdiv Cedar Park Towncenter Cedar Park Towncenter Sec 4 0 Cedar Park Towncenter Sec 3 0
County Williamson Williamson 0 Williamson 0
Zip 78613 78613 0 78613 0
Sqft Total 1999 1,726 136 1,710 144
# Stories 1 0 0
ADOM/CDOM --/ 11/11 0/0 6/6 0/0
Beds 3 0 4 0
Baths 2 (2 0) 0/0 2 (2 0) 0/0
# Gar Spcs 3 2 10 2 10
Pool on Prop No No 0 No 0
Year Built 2006 2007 0 2006 0
Acres 0.226 0.000 ac/0 0 0.000 ac/0 0
Buy Clsg $ 0 0
Pd by Slr
Repairs Amt 0 0
Remarks:
One Story Meticulously maintained 1 story home in great 4 spacious bedrooms in the highly sought
3 car garage area. 3 bedroom plus home office (could be after Leadner ISD! Great floor plan with tons
3 sides stone exterior exercise room, hobby room or 4th bedroom). of upgrades throughout. The open kitchen
oversized corner lot Kitchen features granite counter tops and features stainless steel appliances, granite
2 blocks to neighborhood park/pool center island. Refrigerator stays. Hardwood counter tops, gas stove, island, and a
floors through main areas of the home. breakfast area. Huge windows throughout
Price adjustments based on $0.50 / square Laundry room with washer and dryer. bring in tons of natural light. The master bed
foot + $10 for third car garage Upgraded throughout. room features a double vanity, separate
Covered patio. 2 car rear entry garage with garden tub & shower, and walk in closet. The
door opener. Located near major roads, private backyard with a covered patio is
Costco and plenty of shopping/ restaurants. perfect for entertaining!
Price $1,700 $1,700
Total Adjustments $146 $154
Adjusted Price $1,846 $1,854
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Price Adjustments
This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties.
Subject Property Details Adjust
1607 Main ST 1804 Discovery BLVD
MLS# 8049941
Status Leased
List Price $2,095
List Date 05/01/2015
Sold Price $2,000
Sold Date 06/05/2015
City Cedar Park Cedar Park 0
Subdiv Cedar Park Towncenter Cedar Park Towncenter 0
County Williamson Williamson 0
Zip 78613 78613 0
Sqft Total 1999 2,327 -164
# Stories 1 0
ADOM/CDOM --/ 17/17 0/0
Beds 4 0
Baths 2 (2 0) 0/0
# Gar Spcs 3 3 0
Pool on Prop No No 0
Year Built 2006 2013 0
Acres 0.226 0.000 ac/0 0
Buy Clsg $ 0
Pd by Slr
Repairs Amt 0
Remarks:
One Story Elegant open single story -CP Town Center.
3 car garage Huge covered front porch or covered back
3 sides stone exterior patio. 3 Car Garage, entering from back of
oversized corner lot home. Gorgeous engineered wood floors.
2 blocks to neighborhood park/pool Spacious kitchen has granite counters, huge
counter space area & breakfast bar. Master
Price adjustments based on $0.50 / square suite has tiered ceiling, garden bathtub,
foot + $10 for third car garage separate shower & double sinks. French
doors open into study/formal dining. Fully
fenced w/easy care fencing. Sprinkler
system. Refrigerator, washer and dryer.
Easy access to shopping, park, and pool.
Price $2,000
Total Adjustments $-164
Adjusted Price $1,836
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
Minimums and Maximums
This page summarizes key fields of the listings in this analysis.
The listings in this analysis can be summarized as follows:
Listing Price between $1,700 and $2,095
3 to 4 Bedrooms
2.00 Total Bathrooms
1,710 to 2,327 Square Feet
Year Built between 2006 and 2013 years
$0.90 to $0.99 List Price per Square Foot
$0.86 to $0.99 Sold Price per Square Foot
6 to 17 Cumulative Days on Market
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
Number of Cumulative Days On Market
This graph illustrates the number of cumulative days on market for the listings in this analysis.
Cumulative Days On Market
18
16
14
Days On Market
12
10
C D OM
8
6
4
2
0
4
1
8
42
94
29
20
49
21
52
80
29
MLS#
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
List Price and Sale Price
This graph illustrates the list price, along with sale price in Sold listings.
Price Graph
2400
2000
1600
List Price
1200
Price
Sale Price
800
400
0
4
1
8
42
94
29
20
49
21
52
80
29
MLS#
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report
These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Leased Properties
609 Brazos Bend DR
MLS #: 5220424 Status: Leased Beds: 3 L Price: $1,700
County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $1,700
City: Cedar Park Age: 2007 Lse Dt: 5/23/2015
Parking: CDOM: 11
Rmks: Meticulously maintained 1 story home in great area. 3 bedroom plus home
office (could be exercise room, hobby room or 4th bedroom). Kitchen features
granite counter tops and center island. Refrigerator stays. Hardwood floors
through main areas of the home. Laundry room with washer and dryer.
Upgraded throughout.
Covered patio. 2 car rear entry garage with door opener. Located near major
roads, Costco and plenty of shopping/ restaurants.
Direct: Take 183A and exit FM 1431. West on FM 1431 to Right on Discovery Blvd. Left
at circle on to Main St. Right on Brazos Bend Dr.
1802 Garner DR
MLS #: 2921298 Status: Leased Beds: 4 L Price: $1,700
County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $1,700
City: Cedar Park Age: 2006 Lse Dt: 5/14/2015
Parking: CDOM: 6
Rmks: 4 spacious bedrooms in the highly sought after Leadner ISD! Great floor plan
with tons of upgrades throughout. The open kitchen features stainless steel
appliances, granite counter tops, gas stove, island, and a breakfast area.
Huge windows throughout bring in tons of natural light. The master bed room
features a double vanity, separate garden tub & shower, and walk in closet.
The private backyard with a covered patio is perfect for entertaining!
Direct: From 1431, go north on Discovery Blvd to Big Spring Drive. Turn left and go
through the roundabout to Hill Country Drive, turn right on Bill Creek Prkwy,
turn left on Garner, turn right.
1804 Discovery BLVD
MLS #: 8049941 Status: Leased Beds: 4 L Price: $2,095
County: Williamson Baths: 2 (2 0) Lse Prc: $2,000
City: Cedar Park Age: 2013 Lse Dt: 6/5/2015
Parking: CDOM: 17
Rmks: Elegant open single story -CP Town Center. Huge covered front porch or
covered back patio. 3 Car Garage, entering from back of home. Gorgeous
engineered wood floors. Spacious kitchen has granite counters, huge counter
space area & breakfast bar. Master suite has tiered ceiling, garden bathtub,
separate shower & double sinks. French doors open into study/formal dining.
Fully fenced w/easy care fencing. Sprinkler system. Refrigerator, washer and
dryer. Easy access to shopping, park, and pool.
Direct: 183A north to Hwy 1431. Left onto 1431. Right on Discovery Blvd. House on
right.
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report
These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Leased Properties
Total # of Listings 3
Lowest Price $1,700
1802 Garner DR
Highest Price $2,000
Average Price $1,800
Avg. Price/SqFt $0.95
Avg CDOM 11
1804 Discovery BLVD
609 Brazos Bend DR
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report
These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Summary Graph/Analysis
2.0K
1.6K
1.2K
0.8K
0.4K
0.0K
Avg Price Min Price Max Price
Cumulative Analysis
Listing Category Lowest Price Highest Price Average Price Avg $ Per SF
Leased $1,700 $2,000 $1,800 $0.95
Totals / Averages $1,700 $2,000 $1,800 $0.95
Sold Property Analysis
Address List Price Sold Price CDOM %SP/LP SP/Sqft
609 Brazos Bend DR $1,700 $1,700 11 %100.00 $0.98
1802 Garner DR $1,700 $1,700 6 %100.00 $0.99
1804 Discovery BLVD $2,095 $2,000 17 %95.47 $0.86
Total Averages $1,832 $1,800 11 %98.49 $0.95
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
CMA Pro Report
These pages give a general overview of the selected properties.
Property Summary
S Street Address Bds Bth Sqft L Price S Price Sold Date CDOM
Leased
L 609 Brazos Bend DR 3 2 (2 0) 1,726 $1,700 $1,700 05/23/2015 11
L 1802 Garner DR 4 2 (2 0) 1,710 $1,700 $1,700 05/14/2015 6
L 1804 Discovery BLVD 4 2 (2 0) 2,327 $2,095 $2,000 06/05/2015 17
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
Brief Summary of Compared Listings
This report summarizes the comparable listings contained in this market analysis.
Status: Leased
MLS# Stat Date Address City Sqft Bds Bth L/S Price CDOM
5220424 05/23/2015 609 Brazos Bend DR Cedar Park 1,726 3 2.0 $1,700 11
2921298 05/14/2015 1802 Garner DR Cedar Park 1,710 4 2.0 $1,700 6
8049941 06/05/2015 1804 Discovery BLVD Cedar Park 2,327 4 2.0 $2,000 17
Averages: 1,921 4 2.0 $1,800 11
Summary
Status Total Avg Price Avg $ Per SqFt Median Low High Avg CDOM
ACTIVE
AC
PENDING
PENDING TB
PENDING O4M
SOLD
LEASED 3 $1,800 $0.95 $1,700 $1,700 $2,000 11
EXPIRED
WITHDRAWN
Temp Off Mrkt
Total 3 $1,800 $0.95 $1,700 $1,700 $2,000 11
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
1607 Main ST
Cedar Park, 78613
Friday, June 26, 2015
Pricing Recommendation
This page suggests a recommended selling price based on a thorough analysis of your property.
Fair market value of home is $1845 per month based on Average Adjusted Comparable Price.
Large single story home with three car garage and three sides stone exterior on oversized corner lot located only two
blocks from park/pool.
Comparables are all the leased homes within last 90 days in MLS with : 1 story, 1700-2400 square feet, subdivision =
towncenter
Comparable adjustments based on $0.50 per foot and $10 for third car garage.
Researched and prepared by Kenneth Ward
EXHIBIT 3
Spreadsheet Summarizing Court of
Appeals Data
Third&Court&of&Appeals&2
Appeal&Time&for&Recent&Post2Foreclosure&Eviction&Cases
Notice&Date Mandate Number&of&Days Number&of&Months
Rodriguez 2/22/10 5/11/11 443 14.8
Reardean 8/24/12 12/5/13 468 15.6
Killebrew 3/1/13 9/8/14 556 18.5
Jaimes 4/30/13 4/10/14 345 11.5
Wilder 5/9/13 2/26/15 658 21.9
Ashley 8/23/13 3/6/15 560 18.7
Ebert 10/30/13 12/11/14 407 13.6
Richards 8/28/13 6/4/15 645 21.5
AVERAGE 510 17.0
Rodriguez6v.6Citimortgage,6Inc.,6No.603A10A00093ACV,620116WL61821226(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Jan.66,62011)
Reardean6v.6Fed.6Home6Loan6Mortgage6Corp.,6No.603A12A00562ACV,620136WL644875236(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Aug.614,62013,6no6pet.)
Killebrew6v.6BKE6Investments,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00149ACV,620146WL630559846(Tex.6App.AAAustin6June630,62014,6no6pet.)
Jaimes6v.6Fed.6Nat.6Mortgage6Ass'n,6No.603A13A00290ACV,620136WL67809741,6(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Dec.64,62013,6no6pet.)
Wilder6v.6Citicorp6Trust6Bank,6F.S.B.,6No.603A13A00324ACV,620146WL612079796(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Mar.618,62014,6pet.6dism'd6w.o.j.)
Ashley6v.6Citimortgage,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00584ACV,620146WL67466816,6(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Dec.618,62014,6no6pet.)
Ebert6v.6Strada6Capital,6Inc.,6No.603A13A00729ACV,620146WL649150466(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Oct.61,62014,6no6pet.)
Richards6v.6US6Bank6Nat'l6Ass'n,6No.603A13A00590ACV,620156WL66578966(Tex.6App.AAAustin6Feb.611,62015,6no6pet.)
*All6filing6and6docket6information6available6at6the6Third6Court6of6Appeals'6official6website,6accessible6at6http://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx
EXHIBIT 2
June 29 and 30 E-mails re: Bond
Application
7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
J  Hyde  
Cause  No.  15-­0804-­CC4;;  Bond:  Clifford  Homes  v.  Mary  Decker
Dr.  J.  Hyde   Tue,  Jun  30,  2015  at  11:11  AM
To:  Sharrion  Threadgill  
Cc:  Matthew  Wilson  ,  David  Rogers  
Bcc:  Ken  Ward  
Dear  Ms.  Threadgill,
Ms.  Decker's  Motion  for  Bond  Application  and  our  Response  to  that  Motion  are  attached  to  this
email.    Our  proposed  order  is  included  at  the  end  of  our  Response  and  Ms.  Decker's  are  attached
separately.    These  documents  have  all  been  filed  with  the  county  clerk  in  the  records  of  this  case.
The  only  issue  with  the  July  7th  deadline  stems  from  the  wording  of  TEX.  PROP.  CODE  §  24.007(a):
"A  judgment  of  a  county  court  in  an  eviction  suit  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."  (emphasis  added).    With  the  holiday,  the
10  days  in  his  case  is  over  on  July  6th.    Please  advise  as  to  how  Judge  Pennington  would  like  us  to
proceed  with  respect  to  this  issue.    Thank  you.
J
On  Tue,  Jun  30,  2015  at  10:02  AM,  Sharrion  Threadgill    wrote:
Gentlemen  –
Judge  Pennington  has  requested  each  attorney  submit  a  proposed  Order  along  with  written  argument  and  he
will  provide  a  ruling.    Your  arguments  along  with  proposed  Orders  should  be  submitted  on  or  before  July  7th.
Should  you  have  any  questions,  please  contact  me.
-­-­-­-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Sharrion  Threadgill,  Court  Administrator
Williamson  County  Court  at  Law  #4
405  Martin  Luther  King,  Box  17
Georgetown,  Texas  78626
512-­943-­1681
512-­943-­1685  fax
SThreadgill@wilco.org
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 1/5
7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
From:  Dr.  J.  Hyde  [mailto:jhyde@jhydelaw.com]
Sent:  Monday,  June  29,  2015  1:55  PM
To:  Matthew  Wilson
Cc:  Sharrion  Threadgill;;  David  Rogers
Subject:  Re:  Bond:  Clifford  Homes  v.  Mary  Decker;;  15-­0804-­CC4
Dear  Ms.  Threadgill,
We  certainly  do  not  oppose  a  quick  hearing.    However,  in  the  interest  of  saving  all  parties  time
and  expense,  as  well  as  the  convenience  of  the  visiting  judge,  we  believe  the  bond  request  can
be  resolved  based  on  the  written  submissions  and  accompanying  evidence.    At  this  point,  it
seems  that  any  testimony  at  the  hearing  would  be  duplicative  of  what  has  already  been
submitted.    In  any  event,  we  recognize  the  time-­sensitive  nature  of  Defendant's  request,  as  the
statutory  deadline  for  Defendant  to  suspend  enforcement  of  the  judgment  pending  appeal  is  6
July  2015.    Thank  you.
J
On  Mon,  Jun  29,  2015  at  1:03  PM,  Matthew  Wilson    wrote:
Hi  Mrs  Threadgill,
This  email  is  to  request  a  hearing  to  set  a  bond  in  the  forcible  detainer  case:  15-­0509-­CC4.    The  visiting  judge
granted  summary  judgment  on  June  23rd  and  did  not  set  a  bond  despite  a  specific  request  for  bond.    A  notice
of  appeal,  motion  to  set  bond,  and  a  motion  to  stay  writ  of  possession  were  filed  in  this  case  last  week.    I  have
three  specific  questions  in  this  case.
1)  Will  a  hearing  be  set  this  week  in  order  to  set  bond?
2)  If  a  hearing  cannot  be  set  this  week  before  the  ten  day  deadline,  can  a  nominal  bond  be  set  until  the  court
can  set  a  hearing  to  set  bond?
3)  Will  the  court  allow  a  writ  of  possession  to  issue  in  instances  where  a  bond  has  not  been  set  and  a  notice  of
appeal  has  been  filed  with  the  court?
Thanks,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 2/5
7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
Matthew L. Wilson
Wilson  Law  Office,  PLLC
Attorney  at  Law
512.201.4519  Direct
512.923.1836  Office
512.201.4082  E-­Fax
MWilson@MatthewWilsonLaw.com
MatthewWilsonLaw.com
Serving  With  Honor
CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE:    This  email  communication  (including  any  attached  document(s))  may  contain  information
that  is  confidential,  proprietary  and/or  privileged.    The  information  is  intended  for  the  sole  use  of  the  indicated
addressee(s).    If  you  are  not  an  intended  recipient  of  this  email  communication,  please  be  advised  that  any  disclosure,
copying,  distribution  or  other  use  of  this  communication  or  any  attached  document  is  strictly  prohibited.    Moreover,  any
such  inadvertent  disclosure  shall  not  compromise  or  waive  the  attorney-­client  privilege  as  to  this  communication  or
otherwise.    If  you  have  received  this  fax  communication  in  error,  please  notify  the  sender  immediately  by  e-­mail
(mwilson@matthewwilsonlaw.com),  and  promptly  destroy  all  copies  of  this  communication  and  any  attached
document(s).  Thank  you.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 3/5
7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
-­-­
Dr.  J.  HYDE
The  J.  HYDE  Law  Office,  PLLC
111  E.  17th  St.  #12015
Austin,  Texas  78711
T:  512.200.4080
F:  512.582.8295
E:  jhyde@jhydelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE:  This  communication  is  attorney/client  privileged  and  confidential  and
solely  for  the  identified  recipient.  Any  disclosure,  copying,  distribution,  or  use  of  the  contents  of
this  communication  is  strictly  prohibited.  If  you  have  received  this  e-­mail  in  error,  immediately
notify  the  sender  by  reply  e-­mail  and  permanently  delete  this  transmission.
TAX  ADVICE  DISCLAIMER:  Any  federal  tax  advice  contained  in  this  communication  (including
attachments)  was  not  intended  or  written  to  be  used,  and  it  cannot  be  used,  by  you  for  the
purpose  of  (1)  avoiding  any  penalty  that  may  be  imposed  by  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  or  (2)
promoting,  marketing,  or  recommending  to  another  party  any  transaction  or  matter  addressed
herein.
-­-­
Dr.  J.  HYDE
The  J.  HYDE  Law  Office,  PLLC
111  E.  17th  St.  #12015
Austin,  Texas  78711
T:  512.200.4080
F:  512.582.8295
E:  jhyde@jhydelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE:  This  communication  is  attorney/client  privileged  and  confidential  and
solely  for  the  identified  recipient.  Any  disclosure,  copying,  distribution,  or  use  of  the  contents  of
this  communication  is  strictly  prohibited.  If  you  have  received  this  e-­mail  in  error,  immediately
notify  the  sender  by  reply  e-­mail  and  permanently  delete  this  transmission.
TAX  ADVICE  DISCLAIMER:  Any  federal  tax  advice  contained  in  this  communication  (including
attachments)  was  not  intended  or  written  to  be  used,  and  it  cannot  be  used,  by  you  for  the
purpose  of  (1)  avoiding  any  penalty  that  may  be  imposed  by  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  or  (2)
promoting,  marketing,  or  recommending  to  another  party  any  transaction  or  matter  addressed
herein.
3  attachments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 4/5
7/5/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - Cause No. 15-0804-CC4; Bond: Clifford Homes v. Mary Decker
Decker  -­  Application  for  Bond  -­  062515.pdf
653K
Response  to  Bond  Motion  -­  File  Stamped.pdf
5459K
Decker  Proposed  CC4  Orders.pdf
413K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=sthreadgill%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e453cc3016b410&dsqt=1&siml=14… 5/5
EXHIBIT 3
Order on Bond Application
EXHIBIT 4
July 2 E-mail from A. Wiseman to J.
Hyde re: Bond Order
7/4/2015 The J. HYDE Law Office, PLLC Mail - 15-0508-CC4
J  Hyde  
15-­0508-­CC4
Anita  Wiseman   Thu,  Jul  2,  2015  at  1:45  PM
To:  "jhyde@jhydelaw.com"  
Anita Wiseman
Deputy Clerk
Williamson County
Civil/Probate
512-­943-­1140
Order.tif
38K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82004f0ce7&view=pt&q=awiseman%40wilco.org&qs=true&search=query&msg=14e50164ec14ca34&siml=14e50164ec… 1/1