Seventh Court Remands for Findings Following Trial Court’s Denial of Supersedeas Bond

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 07-26-00058-CV, February 23, 2026.

On appeal from the 481st District Court of Denton County.

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals held that when a trial court denies a request to set a supersedeas bond without conducting a hearing or providing a stated legal basis, the appellate court may remand the matter under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4(d). This procedural move requires the trial court to take evidence and enter formal findings of fact to ensure a reviewable record exists regarding the appellant’s right to suspend judgment enforcement.

Relevance to Family Law

In the context of family law litigation—particularly concerning the division of complex marital estates or the enforcement of turnover orders—the ability to supersede a judgment is vital to prevent the irreversible dissipation of assets or the premature transfer of property. This ruling underscores that a trial court cannot summarily extinguish an appellant’s right to maintain the status quo through a mere notation on an unsigned order. For family law practitioners, this provides a powerful check against “pocket vetoes” of supersedeas requests, ensuring that any denial of a stay must be supported by a developed evidentiary record and specific findings.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Ethan Allen-Scott Mitchell appealed a judgment rendered in Denton County. Seeking to defer enforcement of the judgment during the pendency of the appeal, he filed a motion in the trial court to set a supersedeas bond pursuant to Rule 24 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court declined to grant the request. Rather than issuing a formal order following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court produced an unsigned order containing a handwritten notation stating: “[t]his order will not be signed. Stay is denied.” The record contained no indication that a hearing was held to determine the propriety or amount of a bond, nor did the trial court provide any specific findings or legal reasons for the denial. Mitchell subsequently filed a Motion to Review the Trial Court’s Denial of Supersedeas and an Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement with the Seventh Court of Appeals.

Issues Decided

The central issue was whether an appellate court should remand a supersedeas dispute for findings of fact and the taking of evidence when the trial court denies a bond request without an evidentiary hearing or a stated rationale.

Rules Applied

The Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.1, which establishes that a judgment debtor is generally entitled to supersede a judgment and defer enforcement pending appeal. It cited Miga v. Jensen, 299 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2009), for the proposition that the fundamental purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the status quo. Most importantly, the Court invoked Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4(d), which provides the specific authority for an appellate court to remand a supersedeas issue to the trial court for the entry of findings of fact or the taking of evidence when the record is insufficient for appellate review.

Application

The Seventh Court of Appeals began its analysis by reaffirming the baseline right of an appellant to suspend a judgment’s enforcement. The court noted that because the purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the parties’ positions as they existed prior to the judgment, a trial court’s refusal to set such a bond is a significant act that requires a reviewable basis. In this instance, the trial court’s use of an informal notation on an unsigned order created a procedural vacuum. Because the appellate record was devoid of any evidence or findings explaining why the stay was denied, the Court of Appeals determined it could not effectively review the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Rather than ruling on the merits of the stay based on an incomplete record, the Court utilized Rule 24.4(d) to compel the trial court to perform its fact-finding function.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the appropriate remedy for a summary denial of a supersedeas bond—where no hearing was held and no reasons were provided—is a remand to the trial court. The Court ordered the trial court to take evidence and make specific findings of fact concerning the supersedeas bond.

The Court further held that the trial court must file a supplemental clerk’s record containing these findings and any related evidence with the Court of Appeals by a date certain. This ensures that the appellate court can later conduct a meaningful review of the bond issue under an abuse of discretion standard.

Practical Application

This case provides a strategic roadmap for trial counsel when faced with a trial court that is reluctant to stay enforcement of a property division or monetary judgment. If a trial court attempts to deny a stay “off the record,” counsel should immediately request formal findings of fact and an evidentiary hearing. If the trial court persists in a summary denial, the practitioner should move the Court of Appeals for review under Rule 24.4, specifically citing Mitchell as authority to force a remand. This prevents the appellee from executing on a judgment while the appellant is left without the procedural protections intended by Rule 24.

Checklists

Securing a Reviewable Record on Supersedeas

• File a formal written motion to set a supersedeas bond or to provide alternative security.
• Request an evidentiary hearing on the record to establish the necessary bond amount or the appellant’s inability to pay.
• Submit a proposed order that includes blank spaces for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• If the trial court denies the motion without a hearing, file a formal request for findings of fact regarding the denial within the timelines prescribed by the rules.

Tactical Steps for TRAP 24.4 Review

• File a Motion to Review the Trial Court’s Action in the Court of Appeals.
• Attach the “order” or notation showing the trial court’s denial.
• Explicitly request a remand under TRAP 24.4(d) if the record lacks a stated basis for the trial court’s decision.
• File a concurrent emergency motion for a temporary stay with the Court of Appeals to prevent enforcement while the remand and fact-finding process occurs.

Citation

Mitchell v. Mitchell, No. 07-26-00058-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 23, 2026, order).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~b77b0826-7d7d-4de1-9e4d-b5cc278d445c~~