Summary
recognizing that a trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of security necessary to protect an appellees’ interests during the pendency of an appeal from a non-monetary judgment
Summary of this case from Eis Dev. II v. Buena Vista Area Ass'nOpinion
No. 05-17-01112-CV
02-16-2018
EMF SWISS AVENUE, LLC, Appellant v. PEAK'S ADDITION HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, CITY OF DALLAS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-02532
OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Appellee Peak's Addition Home Owner's Association (HOA) filed a Motion to Review Security. Because the trial court's judgment is for something other than money or an interest in property, the trial court was required to determine the amount of security appellant EMF Swiss Avenue, LLC was required to post to supersede the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(3). Following a hearing, the trial court set that amount at $150,000. In its motion, HOA requests this Court to vacate the trial court's supersedeas order and increase the amount of security to $1,000,000 or, alternatively, to determine some other amount of security based on the evidence presented to the trial court. See id. (security for judgments "for something other than money or an interest in property" must protect judgment creditor from loss or damage appeal might cause). HOA subsequently filed its brief on the merits challenging our jurisdiction over this appeal. Because HOA's jurisdictional complaints are intertwined with the parties' positions regarding the proper damages model to be used in determining security, the Court deferred the motion to the submissions panel. As a result, on February 12, 2018, the Clerk of the Court notified the parties of the Court's decision.
HOA has filed a letter objecting to our decision to defer the motion to the submissions panel. We will construe the letter as a motion to reconsider that decision. We grant HOA's motion to reconsider our decision to defer the motion. Having reviewed HOA's motion to review security, we conclude HOA has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in setting security. See Solar Soccer Club v. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church of Carrollton, 234 S.W.3d 814, 831 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied)(trial court has broad discretion in determining amount of security). Accordingly, we deny the relief requested in HOA's motion to review security.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE