X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After initially backing out of an agreement to sell a parcel of land to Gregory Collins and Catalina Development, and after litigation that followed, El Paso County entered into a Rule 11 agreement with the parties and David Escobar, the trustee for a joint venture. In consideration for the dismissal and release of all claims related to the property and the promise not to seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, the county agreed to sell a portion of the property to the joint venture for $3.04 million, or the appraised value of the property, whichever was greater. The joint venture also agreed to reimburse the county for its attorneys’ fees in the underlying litigation. A week after the agreement was made, on Dec. 29, 2003, Ranchos Real Developers filed for a temporary injunction to prohibit the sale of the property for various statutory reasons. The trial court issued a TRO and ordered Ranchos Real to deposit $10,000 into the court’s registry to secure the order. On Jan. 21, 2004, however, the trial court denied the temporary injunction. Ranchos filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction with this court. This court stayed all proceedings. The county and Escobar then filed a motion to require Ranchos to pay $3.29 million to secure the stay. This court then asked the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the trial court found that the joint venture would have paid $3.29 million for the property if the transaction had closed. If the case was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, it would take at least 16 months for a decision. During that time, the county would stand to lose $54,187 in interest and $17,067 in taxes. Also during that time, Escobar and the joint venture would stand to lose $252,000 for the points they were paying to keep the funds for the transaction liquid. If the deal had closed, Catalina would have received $150,000, plus a 15 percent interest in the property, for a total of $643,105. The trial court also noted that Catalina gave up its right to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial court ultimately recommended that security be set at $1.19 million, the total of all the potential losses that the court had found, plus all of the attorneys fees related to the stay proceeding and the original litigation. HOLDING:Security set at $320,000. The court confirms that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 expressly provides that it may require appropriate security when it entered a temporary order pending disposition of an interlocutory appeal. The court also finds that, though the rule does not define “appropriate security,” appellate courts have some discretion in determining the amount. Since the purpose of a security is to secure payment to the party against whom the injunction is granted for losses that may be sustained if it is later determined that the injunction was erroneous, the court concludes that in determining the appropriate security, it will consider only losses that may result from the granting of the stay. It will not consider losses resulting from the litigation as a whole. As to the losses the county, Escobar and the joint venture would face, the court defers to the trial court’s findings. The court excludes the amount Catalina would stand to lose because that amount is related to the litigation as a whole, not to the stay; same for the forfeiture of the right to seek a writ of certiorari. The court also agrees with Ranchos that only the portion of the attorneys’ fees related to the stay should be considered, not the ones related to the underlying litigation. The total, the court concludes, is approximately $330,000. Since Ranchos has already paid $10,000, the court directs Ranchos to deposit $320,000, in cash or as a bond, into the court’s registry to secure the stay. OPINION:Larsen, J.; Larsen, McClure and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.