The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the amount of the judgment appealed from the judgment debtor’s net worth calculation for purposes of a supersedeas bond. What is different from this opinion than from a prior opinion we blogged about is that in this
supersedeas
Judgments, Net Worth, and Supersedeas
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
Once again, a court of appeals has weighed in on the question of calculating net worth for purposes of supersedeas. The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to include the judgment as a liability in calculating the judgment debtor’s net worth. The court relied on the…
Superseding judgments: what damages must be superseded?
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
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very thorough treatment of the parties’ arguments and analysis of the law relating to elements of damages that must be superseded.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…
Mandamus and Supersedeas
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has issued an interesting opinion in a mandamus proceeding involving what is described as an unsuperseded judgment. In In re Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides, L.L.P., there was a dispute between the law firm of Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides (RG&B) and attorney Mark Cantu regarding the right to a…
Judgments Against Sureties
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Austin Court of Appeals has held that a court of appeals judgment that affirms the trial court’s judgment is the equivalent of a judgment rendered against the appellants. In Kleas v. BMC West Corp., the Court construes TRAP 43.5 regarding judgments against sureties and holds that its judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment…