Haydee Cruz and Joe Manny Cruz v. Alejandro Sanchez
474 S.W.3d 451
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Final summary judgment awarding Sanchez $250,000 plus interest and fees on 2012-DCV-06506; Cruz and Cruz did not appeal that judgment.
- Cruz and Cruz later sought relief in 2015-DCV1077 via bill of review and injunctive relief.
- Trial court denied the bill of review but granted a temporary injunction staying execution pending the appeal.
- Sanchez moved for review of the temporary injunction, claiming no supersedeas bond was required and asserting noncompliance with Rules 683-684.
- Appellants argued the temporary injunction could be insulated from Rule 24 review by not being an interlocutory order.
- The appellate court ultimately denied dissolution of the temporary injunction and held no supersedeas bond was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supersedeas bond required to stay judgment while appealing | Sanchez: bond needed to suspend final judgment | Cruz: bond not needed since proceeding is bill of review | No supersedeas bond required; final judgment cannot be suspended by bond on this bill of review |
| Compliance of temporary injunction with Rules 683-684 | Sanchez: defect in injunction | Cruz: injunction valid under bill of review context | Waived objection by Sanchez for not appealing the order; no dissolution of injunction |
| Reviewability of temporary injunction under Rule 24 | Sanchez: injunction falls within Rule 24 review | Cruz: not subject to Rule 24 as interlocutory/within bill of review | Order not subject to dissolution via Rule 24; no appeal filed on the injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miga v. Jensen, 299 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2009) (supersedeas bond generally preserves status quo during appeal)
- Kantor v. Herald Publishing Co., Inc., 632 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1982) (supersedeas rules and effect on final judgments; bond limitations)
- Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enterprises, Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2012) (bill of review is independent from original action; stay possible during proceedings)
- Schwartz v. Jefferson, 520 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1975) (filing bill of review does not affect finality of original judgment)
- Petro-Chemical Transport, Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1974) (courts may grant temporary injunction to protect status quo in bill of review)
- American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. Pixley, 687 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.App.—Hou. Dist. 1985) (trial court may grant temporary relief in bill of review context)
- Renger v. Jeffrey, 182 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. 1944) (voidness of attempting to supersede final judgment)