TX · rules

Tex. R. App. P. 24.4

Appellate Review

activein force · 2026-02-06 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Motions; Review. A party may seek review

of the trial court's ruling by motion filed in

the court of appeals with jurisdiction or

potential jurisdiction over the appeal from the

judgment in the case. A party may seek

review of the court of appeals' ruling on the

motion by petition for writ of mandamus in

the Supreme Court. The appellate court may

review:

(1) the sufficiency or excessiveness of the

amount of security, but when the

judgment is for money, the appellate

court must not modify the amount of

security to exceed the limits imposed by

Rule 24.2(a)(1);

(2) the sureties on any bond;

(3) the type of security;

(4) the determination whether to permit

suspension of enforcement; and

(5) the trial court's exercise of discretion

under Rule 24.3(a).

(b) Grounds of Review. Review may be based

both on conditions as they existed at the time

the trial court signed an order and on changes

in those conditions afterward.

issue any temporary orders necessary to

preserve the parties’ rights.

(d) Action by Appellate Court. The motion must

be heard at the earliest practicable time. The

appellate court may require that the amount

of a bond, deposit, or other security be

increased or decreased, and that another

bond, deposit, or security be provided. The

appellate court may require other changes in

the trial court order. The appellate court may

remand to the trial court for entry of findings

of fact or for the taking of evidence.

(e) Effect of Ruling. If the appellate court

orders additional or other security to

supersede the judgment, enforcement will be

suspended for 20 days after the appellate

court’s order. If the judgment debtor

does not comply with the order within that

period, the judgment may be enforced. When

any additional bond, deposit, or security has

been filed, the trial court clerk must notify

the appellate court. The posting of additional

security will not release the previously posted

security or affect any alternative security

arrangements that the judgment debtor

previously made unless specifically ordered

by the appellate court.

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: 9d918dddc1768a519262bba340c902c55ce894ec8c6084bd3a9b9c43e98d55e9

View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs