Matthew Eugene Devine v. Vicki Dianne Devine
07-15-00126-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2015Background
- Divorce decree required sale of a jointly owned lake house: list for six months, and if unsold, relist for another six months and accept highest qualified offer; dispute arose over when the “date of listing” began.
- Matt (appellant) claimed listing began Feb 20, 2013; Vicki (appellee) claimed Nov 29, 2012; Matt offered to buy on Feb 19, 2014 and sued when Vicki refused.
- Trial court held a hearing, entered orders denying Matt’s enforcement claim and appointed a receiver to sell the property; Matt appealed and sought a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement pending appeal.
- After this court remanded to set the bond, a $1,000,000 purchase contract for the property was later received by the receiver; the trial court set the supersedeas bond at $225,500 (based on Vicki’s projected profit from that sale). Matt deposited that amount and sought review.
- Matt argued the bond should only cover actual costs to preserve the status quo (insurance deductible and maintenance — about $18,300); Vicki argued it should protect her projected sale profits. Matt challenged the excessiveness and lack of legal support for $225,500.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure for supersedeas when judgment awards proceeds from future sale (non‑property recovery) | Devine (Matt): bond should preserve status quo; cover only maintenance/insurance costs (approx. $18,300) | Devine (Vicki): bond should protect projected profits from subsequent $1,000,000 sale (resulting in $225,500) | Trial court abused discretion by relying on a sale contract executed after judgment; $225,500 is excessive and not tied to status quo preservation. Court reversed and remanded for new evidentiary determination. |
| Whether appellate court can set a reduced bond itself | Matt: court should lower bond to amount that preserves status quo | Vicki: (implicit) bond justified as set | Court: appellate court may reduce bond but lacks sufficient evidence here to set a new amount; remand required for factfinding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miga v. Jensen, 299 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2009) (judgment debtor entitled to supersede judgment pending appeal)
- Smith v. Tex. Farmers Ins. Co., 82 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2002) (purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the pre-judgment status quo)
- Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1986) (trial court may require creditor to post security to protect debtor if supersedeas is allowed)
- Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard defined for trial court decisions)
- Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. 1996) (discussing standards for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Rowe v. Watkins, 324 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2010) (supersedeas bond must protect judgment creditor against loss or damage the appeal might cause)