Supersedeas aficionados will want to take a look at the Austin Court of Appeals‘ opinion in Shook v. Walden. The opinion gives a very thorough treatment of the parties’ arguments and analysis of the law relating to elements of damages that must be superseded. To summarize, the court of appeals makes the following holdings:
- Attorney’s fees awarded under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 38 are not compensatory damages that must be superseded under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 52.006. The court distinguishes the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals decision in Clearview Props., L.P. v. Property Tex. SC One Corp., 228 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied)
- Prejudgment interest is a form of compensatory damages that must be superseded under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 52.006.
- The clerk’s record for an appeal is not a cost awarded in the judgment and does not have to be superseded under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 52.006.
- Post-judgment interest, including the post-judgment interest awarded on prejudgment interest, trial and post-judgment attorney’s fees, and costs must be superseded under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 52.006.
- Post-judgment interest for one year’s estimated is adequate since the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to revisit the matter after a year has passed.
The court’s opinion may be found here. The court’s opinion that post-judgment interest on post-judgment attorney’s fees must be superseded is interesting in light of the Fourteenth Court’s holding that post-judgment interest on post-judgment attorney’s fees should not begin to run until the appeals court judgment is final. Protechnics Int’l, Inc. v. True-Tag Sys., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ).