You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Patrick Daugherty

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-14-01215-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 22, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a dispute over the appropriate amount of a supersedeas bond, Highland Capital Management, L.P. sought to increase the bond posted by Patrick Daugherty to cover a $2.8 million judgment pending appeal. The existing bond, set at $287,000, accounted for post-judgment interest over an anticipated two-year appeal period. Highland argued that attorney's fees awarded should be included as compensatory damages, thereby raising the bond requirement to $3,087,000. The court rejected this argument, reaffirming that under Texas law, the bond should encompass compensatory damages, interest, and costs, but not attorney's fees unless they are claimed as damages for underlying harm. The language of Daugherty's employment agreement did not support Highland's contention, as it indicated that attorney's fees were recoverable due to breach, not as compensatory damages. Additionally, Highland had not presented attorney's fees as damages during trial, with its expert testifying separately on the reasonableness of the fees from the breach of contract claim. Consequently, the court upheld the original bond amount and denied Highland's motion for increase, maintaining the status quo pending appeal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Attorney's Fees as Compensatory Damages

Application: The court determined that attorney's fees do not constitute compensatory damages unless they are claimed as damages for underlying harm, which Highland Capital Management, L.P. failed to demonstrate.

Reasoning: Attorney's fees, according to legal precedent, do not constitute compensatory damages unless claimed as damages for underlying harm.

Interpretation of Contractual Provisions on Attorney's Fees

Application: The court found that the language in Daugherty's employment agreement indicated attorney's fees were recoverable related to the breach, not as compensation for damages, thus not affecting the bond amount.

Reasoning: Highland's reliance on a provision from Daugherty's employment agreement was deemed insufficient, as the language indicated that attorney's fees are recoverable related to the breach, not as compensation for damages.

Supersedeas Bond Requirements under Texas Law

Application: The court clarified that the supersedeas bond must cover compensatory damages, interest for the appeal's duration, and any awarded costs, but does not require inclusion of attorney's fees unless they are claimed as compensatory damages.

Reasoning: Specifically, the bond must equal the sum of compensatory damages, interest for the appeal's duration, and any awarded costs.