542 S.W.3d 669
Tex. App.2016Background
- Trial court entered judgment for appellees on October 20, 2014, awarding damages and attorney’s fees.
- Trial court set a supersedeas bond at $170,237.76; appellant (McFadin) sought reduction in this court and was denied.
- Appellant posted the supersedeas bond in January 2015 and appealed; this court affirmed the underlying judgment and mandate issued April 8, 2016.
- On April 27, 2016, the trial court signed two post-judgment orders: “Order Requiring Payment of Supersedeas Bond” and “Establishing Attorney’s Fees Due on Judgment.”
- Appellant filed an appeal of those April 27 orders and obtained a temporary stay; this court questioned jurisdiction and ordered briefing on appealability.
- The court concluded the April 27 orders merely enforced the prior judgment (and the previously litigated supersedeas bond amount) and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, lifting the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 27, 2016 orders are appealable final judgments | McFadin contended he could appeal the orders requiring payment on the supersedeas bond and establishing fees | Appellees argued the orders merely enforce the prior final judgment and mandate and are not independently appealable | Orders are interlocutory post-judgment enforcement orders and not appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court awarded new damages or fees in the April 27 orders | McFadin suggested the orders altered amounts or created new obligations warranting appeal | Appellees maintained the orders restated and enforced amounts already awarded in the original judgment (and secured by the supersedeas bond) | Court found no new or additional damages or fees; orders enforced the prior judgment |
| Whether the supersedeas bond amount remains open to challenge after prior appellate rulings | McFadin argued the bond amount could still be reviewed | Appellees pointed out appellant previously moved to reduce the bond in the prior appeal and the court denied relief | Court held the bond amount issue was previously litigated and decided and is not reopened here |
| Whether the orders function as an appealable turnover order | McFadin implied the orders were sufficiently substantive to be treated as turnover orders | Appellees argued the orders were enforcement, not turnover, and hence not appealable | Court held the orders were not turnover orders but enforcement of the prior judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Wiggins, 466 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (post-judgment orders enforcing prior judgment are not appealable final judgments)
- Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friend, 112 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (trial court retains jurisdiction after mandate to perform duties consistent with appellate mandate)