Opinion
03-24-00027-CV
06-28-2024
Waterford Lago Vista, LLC and WF Property Owners Association, Inc., Appellants v. Waterford Development Partners, L.P., Appellee
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-21-002370, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTÚ HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Waterford Lago Vista, LLC has filed a motion to review supersedeas security in connection with its appeal of the trial court's final judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)(1) (allowing for review of amount of security ordered by trial court). We deny the motion.
The dispute underlying this appeal arises from a contract for the sale of real property (the Contract), under which Waterford Lago Vista agreed to sell approximately 88 acres of undeveloped property to Waterford Development Partners' predecessor in interest for a purchase price of $5.6 million. Following a jury trial, the jury found that (1) the increased costs to Waterford Development Partners "resulting from the delay caused by the Contract's failure to close" as originally scheduled totaled $967,070, and (2) the increased costs to Waterford Lago Vista "resulting from the delay caused by the Contract's failure to close" as originally scheduled totaled $159,012. In other words, according to the jury's verdict, Waterford Development Partners incurred a net of $817,058 in increased costs due to the delay in closing.
In its final judgment, the trial court ordered that Waterford Development Partners "shall have and recover specific performance" on the Contract. In addition, in accordance with the jury's verdict, Waterford Development Partners "shall be entitled [at closing] to an equitable adjustment reducing the contract purchase price by the amount of $817,000." Waterford Lago Vista later filed a motion to set supersedeas security. Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the trial court ordered that "the total amount of security required to supersede the final judgment in this case is $820,000." Now, in its motion to review, Waterford Lago Vista requests that we order the trial court to reduce the amount of security required by $817,058, such that the security required would be $2,942.
Under Rule 24.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the amount of security required to supersede a judgment pending appeal depends on which of three types of judgment are at issue. Id. at 24.2 (a)(1)-(3). First, when the judgment is for the recovery of money, the amount of the security must equal the sum of compensatory damages awarded in the judgment, interest for the estimated duration of the appeal, and costs awarded in the judgment. Id. at R. 24.2(a)(1). Second, if the judgment is for the recovery of an interest in real or personal property, the amount set by the trial court must be at least: "(A) the value of the property interest's rent or revenue, if the property interest is real; or (B) the value of the property interest on the date when the court rendered judgment, if the property interest is personal." Id. at R. 24.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). Finally, if the judgment is for "something other than money or an interest in property," the trial court must set the amount and type of security that the judgment debtor must post in an amount that will "adequately protect the judgment creditor against loss or damage that the appeal might cause." Id. at R. 24.2(a)(3).
As a general rule, "a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land is not one for the recovery of land." Bachman v. Neal, 180 S.W.2d 643, 644, (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1944, writ dism'd); see also El Cabellero Ranch v. Grace River Ranch, L.L.C., No. 04-16-00298-CV, 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 9180, at * 11-12 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 24, 2016, order) (op. on motion) (concluding that Rule 24.2(a)(3), and not Rule 24.2(a)(2), applied to judgment declaring valid, express easement and enjoining interference with landowner's use of declared easement). Consequently, we conclude that the judgment in this case (granting specific performance) is "for something other than money or an interest in real property" and is governed by Rule 24.2(a)(3). Under Rule 24.2(a)(3), supersedeas must be set in an amount that will "adequately protect the judgment creditor against loss or damage that the appeal might cause." Tex.R.App.P. 24.2(a)(3). In this context, "loss or damage" refers to "monetary or material losses ascertainable by proof, either by the judgment itself, or, where that is not conclusive, by evidence relating to proof of damages generally." Haedge v. Central Tex. Cattlemen's Ass'n, 603 S.W.3d 824, 828 (Tex. 2020).
A trial judge is given broad discretion in determining the amount and type of security required. See Hernandez v. U.S. Bank Tr. N.A. for LSF8 Master Participation Tr., 527 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2017, no pet.). Having reviewed the motion to set supersedeas security, the response, the reply, and the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the supersedeas bond at $820,000. See EnviroPower, L.L.C. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 265 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App-Houston [1st Dist] 2008, pet. denied); G.M. Houser, Inc. v. Rodgers, 204 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. App-Dallas 2006, no pet.) ("The appellate court reviews the trial court's determination of the amount of security under an abuse of discretion standard."). The Court's stay of execution and enforcement of the final judgment is lifted, and Waterford Lago Vista's motion to decrease supersedeas security is denied.
On March 1, 2024, we granted Waterford Lago Vista's emergency motion for temporary orders and stayed execution and enforcement of the final judgment, pending further orders of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(c).
It is so ordered.