In Muniz v. Vasquez, 797 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ), Vasquez sought to sell a house he owned to Muniz. The contract between the parties provided that Muniz would provide an initial payment and subsequently assume a mortgage to be obtained by Vasquez. While the contract was still executory, Muniz lived in the house and made monthly rental payments. Vasquez failed to secure a loan upon the property and Muniz failed to make the initial payment due under the contract. Vasquez brought suit for possession of the property and for past rental payments. The trial court rendered judgment in Vasquez's favor for past rentals in the amount of $ 3,500 and also for a writ of possession. Id. at 149. Muniz appealed and the trial court set a supersedeas bond in the amount of $ 5,000. Rather than make the bond, Muniz deposited the $ 5,000 in cash. Vasquez then filed a motion in the trial court to increase the amount of the supersedeas bond to $ 9,000 because monthly rentals continued to accrue. Muniz failed to satisfy the additional security requirement, as a result of which, Vasquez successfully sought the release of the $ 5,000 security deposit to him. Id. The appellate court held that the release of the funds to Vasquez while the suit was still pending was clearly erroneous. It affirmed the trial court judgment for $ 3,500 past rental and for post-judgment interest, but ordered Vasquez to refund Muniz the difference between those awards and the $ 5,000 Vasquez obtained from the supersedeas deposit. The relevant thrust of the holding was simply that a trial court may not release a supersedeas deposit to the creditor while the appeal was still pending. Id. at 150. The appellate court was not asked to, and did not, address the propriety of the $ 4,000 additional security required by the trial court.