TX · rules
Tex. R. App. P. 24.3
Continuing Trial Court Jurisdiction; Duties of Judgment Debtor
(a) Continuing Jurisdiction. Even after the trial
court's plenary power expires, the trial court
has continuing jurisdiction to do the
following:
(1) order the amount and type of security
and decide the sufficiency of sureties;
and
(2) if circumstances change, modify the
amount or type of security required to
continue the suspension of a judgment's
execution.
(b) Duties of Judgment Debtor. If, after
jurisdiction attaches in an appellate court, the
trial court orders or modifies the security or
decides the sufficiency of sureties, the
judgment debtor must notify the appellate
court of the trial court's action.
History
Notes and Comments Comment to 1997 change: Former Rules 47, 48, and 49 are merged. The rule is substantially revised. Paragraph 24.1(a) now provides for superseding the judgment by agreement. Paragraph 24.1(c) is taken from former Rule 48 and provides for a deposit in lieu of the bond, including specific provisions for the release of the deposit. Paragraph 24.1(d) provides the conditions for the surety to honor the bond and for the deposit to be paid to the judgment creditor. In subdivision 24.2, the provisions for determining the amount of the bond or deposit are simplified. All provisions regarding superseding a judgment for an interest in property are merged into subparagraph 24.2(a)(2). The procedure for allowing security in a lesser amount is moved to paragraph 24.2(b) and is made applicable to all judgments. Subdivision 24.4 is taken from former Rule 49. The procedure for appellate review is more precisely stated. Comment to 2008 change: Subdivision 24.2(c) is amended to clarify the procedure in determining net worth. A debtor's affidavit of net worth must be detailed, but the clerk must file what is tendered without determining whether it complies with the rule. If the trial court orders that additional or other security be given, the debtor is afforded time to comply. Subdivision 24.4(a) is revised to clarify that a party seeking relief from a supersedeas ruling should file a motion in the court of appeals that has or presumably will have jurisdiction of the appeal. After the court of appeals has ruled, a party may seek review by f iling a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court. See In re Smith / In re Main Place Custom Homes, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). Comment to 2023 change: New Rule 24.2(e) and (f) are added to implement section 52.007 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Comment to 2024 change: Rule 24.1(b)(2) and 24.4(d) are amended to provide that a bond is effective upon filing, though the bond is still subject to challenge.
Provenance
- Source
- txcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
a444cdd4744350cd4d54e3a7e8d51936a38eb806d7381ec7e00ae7c2876525e9
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.