Joan Gottlieb Mendell v. Laurence Scott and Rachel Chaput

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District reviews the amount and type of security required to supersede a permanent injunction involving the winding-up and distribution of trust assets. The court holds that the injunction concerns recovery of an interest in personal property and that interest for the estimated duration of the appeal should not be included in the required security. It grants the motion in part, excludes interest from the security amount, and remands for consideration of whether the reduced security would cause substantial economic harm.

Holdings

1. The trial court's supersedeas order did not require Mendell to use her own personal funds to collateralize the bond or to supersede the injunction in her individual capacity.
2. The modified permanent injunction requiring distribution of the Trust's stocks was a judgment for recovery of an interest in personal property governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(2).
3. The trial court abused its discretion by including $40,504.14 in interest for the estimated duration of the appeal in the security required to supersede the injunction as to the stocks.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Mendell's proposed freeze order or liquidation of the stocks for deposit into the registry as alternate security.
5. The court remanded for the trial court to take evidence and make findings under Rule 24.2(b) concerning whether the required security was likely to cause Mendell substantial economic harm and, if so, what lesser amount would protect appellees' ability to recover.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly required Mendell individually to supersede injunction provisions entered against her in her capacity as trustee.
2. Whether the trial court properly treated the injunction requiring distribution of stocks as a judgment for recovery of an interest in personal property under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(2).
3. Whether interest for the estimated duration of the appeal could be included in the security required to supersede a judgment for recovery of personal property.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting a freeze order or liquidation-and-deposit arrangement as alternate security.
5. Whether the amount of security should be reduced because posting the required amount was likely to cause substantial economic harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(b).

Disposition

remanded