Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc.
355 S.W.3d 296
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Judgment creditors Patterson and Cudd moved to enlarge the supersedeas bond to cover attorney's fees and prejudgment interest awarded in the judgment against Fairways.
- Trial court had issued a supersedeas bond initially covering contract and negligence damages, prejudgment interest on some damages, and costs, but did not include all awards.
- Trial court increased the bond by $79,495.65 to secure a portion of prejudgment interest, but did not secure attorney's fees or Patterson's prejudgment interest on negligence damages.
- Patterson and Cudd argued the bond must include recoverable attorney's fees and prejudgment interest on negligence damages to be good and sufficient.
- The appellate court granted the motion, ordering the bond increased to secure attorney's fees and prejudgment interest, with a total amended bond of $1,984,718.86.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney's fees must be secured | Patterson argues fees are compensatory damages and must be secured. | Fairways contends 52.006 excludes attorney's fees from compensatory damages. | Yes; include attorney's fees in bond. |
| Whether prejudgment interest must be secured | Patterson contends prejudgment interest is compensatory and must be secured. | Fairways argues Shook distinction and non-inclusion for negligence prejudgment interest. | Yes; include prejudgment interest in bond. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shook v. Walden, 304 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (defines compensatory damages and impact on security for 52.006)
- Martinez, 763 S.W.2d 960 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (supersedeas bond includes post-judgment interest)
- Clearview Properties, L.P. v. Property Tex. SC One Corp., 228 S.W.3d 262 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (attorney's fees can be treated as part of security)
- Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1985) (prejudgment interest purpose to fully compensate)
- Muniz v. Vasquez, 797 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (illustrates security purpose for a supersedeas bond)