R.D. Tips, Inc. v. Virginia Jett

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 19, 2015·No. 03-13-00336-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-13-00336-CV

4219443

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

2/19/2015 4:33:41 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

CASE NO. 03-13-00336-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/19/2015 4:33:41 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

R.D. TIPS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

VIRGINIA JETT,

Appellee

Appeal from the 419th District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-11-003799 Hon. Rhonda Hurley, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INCREASE AMOUNT OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

Jonathan D. Pauerstein State Bar No. 15637500 ROSENTHAL P AUERSTEIN SANDOLOSKI AGATHER LLP 755 E. Mulberry, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (210) 225-5000 Facsimile: (210) 354-4034

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT, R.D. TIPS, INC.

1

469216.1

To The Honorable Third Court of Appeals:

Appellant, R.D. Tips, Inc., in opposition to Appellee's Motion To Increase

Amount of Supersedeas Bond, states the following:

1. Appellee seeks to increase the amount of Appellant's supersedeas

bond because the passage of time has led to the accrual of interest. As Appellee

would have it, the bond that originally was sufficient in amount should be

increased to account for additional interest accrued while this case has been under

consideration by this Court.

2. The amount of a supersedeas bond is supposed to equal the amount of

compensatory damages, "interest for the estimated duration of the appeal," and

costs of court. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 52.006(a) (West 2014).

3. The supersedeas bond posted by Appellant includes post-judgment

interest for one year at a rate of 5%. See Exhibit A hereto. This Court has held

that security for one year of post-judgment interest complies with section 52.006 of

the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Shook v. Walden, 304 S.W.3d 910, 929-30

(Tex. App.-Austin 201 0). 1

Another aspect of this decision was disapproved in In re Corral-Lerma, 2014 WL 6612872, at *2 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2014) ("Accordingly, we disapprove of Texas Standard and Shook to the extent they hold that a security amount must include interest on attorney's fees or any other category of a judgment not required to be included in the security amount.").

2

469216.1 4. Appellee does not contend that Appellant's bond was not sufficient

when it was posted. In fact, the amount of Appellant's bond includes attorneys'

fees of $85,000.00 and interest on that sum. Under recent decisions, it generally is

not necessary to include attorneys' fees in the amount superseded. In re Corral-

Lerma, 2014 WL 6612872, at *1 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2014). The amount originally

posted thus was excessive by the amount of the attorneys' fees and post-judgment

interest thereon.

5. This Court also has recognized that the question of an increase in the

bond amount is one for the district court: "If security to cover post-judgment

interest for a longer period becomes warranted as the appeal progresses, the district

court retains jurisdiction to revisit the matter at that juncture." Shook v. Walden,

304 S.W.3d at 929-30; see also Tex. R. App. P. 24.3 (providing for continuing

district court jurisdiction).

6. This Court is authorized to review a trial court's action on a request

for an increase in the amount of a bond. Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. A trial court's

ruling as to the amount of a supersedeas bond is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard. Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services,

Inc., 355 S.W.3d 296, 299 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.).

7. Appellee does not contend that the amount originally set for the bond

was an abuse of discretion, or that it was inadequate at the time it was set. Nor

3

469216.1 does she complain of a district court's ruling on a request for an increase of the

bond amount.

8. Appellee thus does not present anything for review by this Court

under Tex. R. App. P. 24.4.

9. Moreover, particularly since the penal amount of the bond includes

$85,000 for attorneys' fees and interest thereon, which was not required to be

superseded, the amount of the bond is adequate to protect Appellee.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellee's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

J athan D. Pauerstein State Bar No. 15637500 ROSENTHAL P AUERSTEIN SANDOLOSKI AGATHER LLP 755 E. Mulberry, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (21 0) 225-5000 Facsimile: (210) 354-4034 jpauerstein@rpsalaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT, R.D. TIPS, INC.

4

469216.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Response To Motion To Increase Amount Of Supersedeas Bond was served via United States Mail on this 19th day of February, 2015, to the following counsel of record:

Eric J. Taube Hohmann, Taube & Summers LLP 100 Congress Avenue, 18th Floor Austin, Texas 78701

~~ Joatilan D. Pauerstein

5

469216.1

SUPERSEDEAS/APPEALBOND

Bon~ No. "'"'33...,.5;..o.l""'98""'5'--------'l~ & :2 ~ In ~e 419th Judicial District Court ::s ::3J 4, · o ofth.e State of_T._~ex~as~----

- .....8S -~ ~

0

In and for Travis CountJ.S J5. ~ ~ Case or Cause No. D~l-GN-11~003799 ~ § ....... '~ .... 0 <I> ~(,) - g,

_,V..,.IR~G,.IN....,.,I....,A._.J~E......

T_._T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,, Plaintiff t:.!?

c: >

1- (...)

:g ~

·- f! c.:>

Vs. } "'t-

Gl- :=o LL.

...,R"-".D=._.T"""IP'""S~. .,IN..,..C"'"'.----------'' Defendant

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, R.D. Tips. Inc., as principal, and SureTec Insurance Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, and duly authorized to transact business in the State of Texas, as Surety, are held and ftnnly bound unto Virginia Jett in the just and full sum Three Million Seven Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Five Dollars and Fortv Seven Cents ($3.788.745.47), for which sum, well and truly to be p~d, we bind ourselves, our and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, ftnnly be these presents.

WHEREAS, on the 11th day of February, m a judgment was ~ndered by the 4191h Judicial District Court of the State of Texas, in and for the County of Travis. in the ~hove entitled and numbered action in favor of the Plaintiff, Virginia Jett, and against the Defendant, R.D. tips. Inc. adjudging and decreeing that the Plaintiff will have and recover from said Defendant the sum stated above, with interest at the legal rate, until paid, together with the Plaintiff's costs in this action; and

WHEREAS, said Defendant has appealed, or is about to appeal, to the 419th Judicial District Court of the State of Texas, from the above mentioned judgment and the whole thereof, and said Defendant desires to suspend execution of said judgment pending such appeal.

NOW THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that, iftjle above named Defendant, R.D. Tips. Inc., shall prosecute his appeal with effect and shall, if the judgmenti of the 4191h Judicial District Court be against him, perfonn such judgment or decree of said court, and pay iall such damages, interest and costs as may be awarded against him, perform such judgment or decree of said court, and pay all such damages, interest and costs as may be awarded against him on such appeal, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in no event shall the surety's liability ~xceed the penal sum of this bond.

Signed, sealed, and dated this 7th day of October, W,l.

Jonathan D. Pauerstein and Esther Juanita Pelaez-Prada Attorney of Record 755 East Mulben:y. Suite 220 Address San Antonio. Texas 78212

(210) 225-5000 Phone

PLACED IN BOND BOOK NO. 9

POA#:,_ __,3=3=51.:.-=9::..:8=5__

SureTec Insurance C~mpany LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY Klrow AH Mm by Tltese Presmts, That SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY (the "CompiUly''), a corporation dllly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and having its principal office in Houston, Harris County, Texa8, does by these presents make, constitute and appoint Dan Webster

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

R.D. Tips, Inc. v. Virginia Jett, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

R.D. Tips, Inc. v. Virginia Jett (R.D. Tips, Inc. v. Virginia Jett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shook v. Walden
304 S.W.3d 910 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc.
355 S.W.3d 296 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
in Re Teresa Corral-Lerma
451 S.W.3d 385 (Texas Supreme Court, 2014)