Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Guadalupe Economic Services Corporation v. Pedro DeHoyos, Jr. and Charlot DeHoyos
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-05-00096-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 17, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Guadalupe Economic Services Corporation (GES) has filed two motions related to its appeal against a judgment that found it liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty toward Pedro and Charlot DeHoyos. The trial court initially set a supersedeas bond at $302,203, which GES requested to be reduced due to financial difficulties stemming from significant operating losses. The district court subsequently reduced the bond to $200,000 after a hearing. GES is now appealing to further lower the bond to $50,000, asserting that the loss of its properties could jeopardize its existence as a nonprofit. The court has remanded the issue of the bond amount back to the district court and temporarily stayed the enforcement of the judgment pending this determination. GES's motion to expedite the appeal was denied. Under Texas law, to stay enforcement of a money judgment, an appellant must post security covering compensatory damages, interest, and costs, which cannot exceed 50% of the appellant's net worth. The court noted that excessive security requirements could effectively restrict an appellant's right to appeal. The trial court is required to lower the security amount if the judgment debtor demonstrates likely substantial economic harm from the statutory or court-set amount (Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. 52.006(c), Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(b)). The court maintains jurisdiction to modify security amounts even after plenary power expires, considering changes in circumstances (Tex. R. App. P. 24.3(a)(2)). The appellate court can review the appropriateness of the security amount set by the trial court (Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. 52.006(d), Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)), taking into account both prior and changed conditions (Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(b)). In this case, GES asserts a changed circumstance due to its inability to secure a $200,000 bond, supported by affidavits from its president and an attorney. However, the absence of records from the bond hearing or the district court's order prevents a determination of the evidence that informed the original decision or the current circumstances. The district court is better positioned to assess GES's claim of substantial economic harm, leading to a remand for further proceedings (Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(d)). An injunction is placed on the sale of GES's Lubbock County properties until a hearing is conducted or the injunction is lifted. GES's motion to expedite the appeal is overruled due to the issuance of this order and injunction, with no indication of the appellate court's stance on the appeal's merits. Prior to 2003, trial courts had broad discretion in bond setting, which was amended to prevent substantial economic harm to the debtor while protecting creditors from asset dissipation (Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. 52.006(e)).