Opinion
14-24-00360-CV
11-19-2024
ADVANTIS CERTIFIED STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellant v. MICHAEL GIBSON AND WILLARD L. JACKSON, JR., Appellees
On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-80884
Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
OPINION ON MOTION TO REVIEW SUPERSEDEAS BOND
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from a final judgment signed April 22, 2024, appellees Michael Gibson and Willard L. Jackson, Jr., filed a motion to review the sufficiency of the amount of security required to suspend enforcement of the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. On May 21, 2024, appellant, Advantis Certified Staffing Solutions, Inc., provided notice of a cash deposit in lieu of a supersedeas bond. On July 17, 2024, appellees filed a motion to set statutorily required bond in the trial court. Appellees' motion contested appellant's $1,000 supersedeas bond and requested the trial court to set an appropriate bond. The trial court denied appellees' motion on September 5, 2024. In this court, appellees allege the amount of the supersedeas bond is insufficient and the required security should be increased because the calculation should include the $450,000 in attorneys' fees that was awarded to appellees.
A judgment debtor may supersede the judgment by: (1) filing with the trial court clerk a written agreement with the judgment creditor for suspending enforcement of the judgment; (2) filing with the trial court clerk a good and sufficient bond; (3) making a deposit with the trial court clerk in lieu of a bond; or (4) providing alternate security ordered by the court. Tex.R.App.P. 24.1(a). The amount of security necessary to supersede a money judgment must equal the sum of: (1) the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the judgment; (2) interest for the estimated duration of the appeal; and (3) costs awarded in the judgment. Tex.R.App.P. 24.2(a)(1); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 52.006(a). The amount of security may not, however, exceed the lesser of (1) fifty percent of the judgment debtor's net worth or (2) $25 million. Tex.R.App.P. 24.2(a)(1)(A), (B); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 52.006(b)(1), (2). The Supreme Court of Texas analyzed section 52.006(a) in In re Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership, 406 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. 2013). The Supreme Court of Texas held that the attorney's fees in that case were not compensatory damages or costs for purposes of suspending enforcement of a money judgment. Id. at 176. The court held that in certain circumstances attorneys' fees should be considered compensatory damages or costs, those circumstances are not present in this appeal.
On the motion of a party, an appellate court may review the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount of security, the type of security, and the trial court's determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement. Tex.R.App.P. 24.4(a)(1), (3), (4). We review the trial court's supersedeas ruling for an abuse of discretion. See In re Longview Energy Co., 464 S.W.3d 353, 358 (Tex. 2015); Am. Akaushi Ass'n, Inc. v. Twinwood Cattle Co., No. 14-21-00701-CV, 2022 WL 2678851, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 12, 2022, no pet.); Abdullatif, 536 S.W.3d at 51; Ramco Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Anglo Dutch (Tenge) L.L.C., 171 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, order), disp. on merits, 207 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). Generally, the test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles or whether the trial court acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. Am. Akaushi Ass'n, Inc, No. 14-21-00701-CV, 2022 WL 2678851, at *4. To the extent the ruling turns on a question of law, our review is de novo. Abdullatif, 536 S.W.3d at 51.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in omitting attorneys' fees from the calculation of the security amount. Appellee's motion requesting that we order the amount of security increased, is denied.