Michael Combs and Michael Combs Properties, LLC v. Diane Crepeau and Lari Reninger

Order Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 21, 2023

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00088-CV

MICHAEL COMBS AND MICHAEL COMBS PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellants
V.
DIANE CREPEAU AND LARI RENINGER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03038

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO REVIEW ORDERS
RELATING TO SUPERSEDEAS BOND
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellants ask the Court to review two orders relating to the supersedeas

bond. Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm

the orders.

Background

In the appealed judgment, the trial court awarded damages to appellees

totaling $1,707,971.22. The trial court also imposed a constructive trust over the

following assets in appellants’ possession: (1) two homes; (2) cash in the amount
of $172,000; (3) a one-ounce gold coin; and (4) future benefit pension payments in

the amount of $1,001 per month. Regarding the assets subject to the constructive

trust, the judgment provides that they are “held subject to further order of this

Court or transferred to the Plaintiffs in partial satisfaction of this Judgment at such

value as agreed between the parties, or absent agreement, determined by this

Court.”

Following the judgment, appellees asked that the trial court to set the

supersedeas bond in the amount of $847,113.70. Seeking a lower bond, appellants

successfully argued, in part, that the assets being held in constructive trust should

be excluded from their net worth. The trial court signed an order on March 7, 2023

setting the bond at $34,894.29.

When appellants did not post the supersedeas bond, appellees filed in the

trial court, on April 10, 2023, a motion to require appellants to deposit the non-real

property trust assets into the trial court’s registry. In the motion, appellants stated

that “to the extent that an order to deposit the trust assets into the registry of the

Court for safekeeping is an increase in the security for the judgment, the Court has

authority to increase the security pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 24.3 which provides

the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to order the amount and type of security

and to modify the amount or type of security required.” Following a hearing, the

trial court signed an order on April 18th. In the order, the trial court found, in part,

that the judgment provided that the trust assets were to be held “subject to further

–2–
Order of this Court or transferred to [appellees] in partial satisfaction of the

Judgment” and that appellants had not superseded the judgment. The trial court

ordered appellants to deposit into the trial court’s registry: (1) $172,000; (2) the

one-ounce gold coin; (3) $6,006, being the sum of the periodic pension payments

made to appellants since the judgment was entered; and (4) $1,001 per month by

the 15th day of each month beginning May 15, 2023. The order also provided that

posting a supersedeas bond would not relieve appellants’ obligations under the

order.

Three days later, on April 21st, appellants deposited $34,894.29 with the

district clerk. They also deposited into the trial court’s registry the gold coin and

$62,870.

Because appellants failed to fully comply with the April 21st order to

deposit $179,007 into the court’s registry, appellees filed, on May 19th, an

amended motion to enforce the order by contempt or, alternatively, to increase the

supersedeas bond. Following a hearing, the trial court signed an order on June

20th granting the motion and ordering the supersedeas bond “increased by

$111,000 for a total amount of $145,895.29 pursuant to the Court’s authority under

Tex. R. App. P. 24.1 and 24.3.” Appellants seek review of both the April 18th and

June 20th trial court orders.

–3–
 Applicable Law

A judgment debtor may supersede a judgment by posting a good and

sufficient bond. TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(a)(2). When the judgment is for money, the

amount of the bond must equal the sum of compensatory damages awarded,

interest for the estimated duration of the appeal, and costs awarded in the

judgment. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 52.006(a); TEX. R. APP. P.

24.2(a)(1). The amount, however, cannot exceed the lesser of fifty percent of the

judgment debtor’s current net worth or $25,000,000. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 52.006(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(1).

Even after its plenary power expires, a trial court has continuing jurisdiction

to modify the amount and type of security required to suspend enforcement of the

judgment if circumstances change. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.3(a)(2). We may review

the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount of security and the type of security.

See id. 24.4(a)(1) & (3). We review a trial court’s ruling on the amount of a

supersedeas bond for an abuse of discretion. See G.M. Houser, Inc. v. Rodgers,

204 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.).

Discussion

April 18th Order

Appellants first argue that by ordering money into the court’s registry, the

trial court is enforcing the judgment despite the fact that they posted a supersedeas

bond. As support, appellants rely on Senior Care Living VI, LLC v. Preston

–4–
Hollow Cap., LLC, ___ S.W.3d __ , No. 01-21-00602-CV, 2023 WL 1112162, at

*12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 31, 2023). In Senior Care, the trial

court, after determining that posting a supersdeas bond would cause Senior Care

substantial economic harm, issued an order allowing the appointment of a post-

judgment receiver pursuant to section 31.002 of the civil practice and remedies

code to remain in effect. Noting that the appointment of a post-judgment receiver

is a tool to aid judgment execution, the court of appeals concluded the trial court

abused its discretion. See id. at *12–14. Appellants assert their situation is similar

to that of the judgment debtor in Senior Care. However, unlike the appointment of

a post-judgment receiver, directing money to be placed into the trial court’s

registry is not a judgment execution tool. Placing money into the court’s registry

is a means of keeping the money safe. In contrast, a disbursement of money held

in a court’s registry to a judgment creditor is a vehicle for enforcing a judgment.

See Kenseth v. Dallas Cnty., 126 S.W.3d 584, 598 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.

denied). Appellees correctly point out in their response to the motion that

appellants mischaracterize the April order as one that allows enforcement and does

not allow the judgment to be superseded. We conclude the trial court acted within

its discretion in ordering that certain trust assets be placed in the trial court’s

register.

–5–
 June 20th Order

Appellants also seek review of the trial court’s June 20th order increasing

the supersedeas bond. At the hearing, appellants argued that the trial court could

not increase the amount of the supersedeas bond because there had been no change

in circumstances. A change in circumstance occurs when the supersedeas amount

becomes inadequate. See Hibernia Energy III, LLC v. Ferae Naturae, LLC, 668

S.W.3d 771, 779 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, no pet.) (change occurred when bond

based on amount generated by an oil well and that well reached payout prompting

reconsideration of bond amount); Adams v. Godhania, 635 S.W.3d 454, 461 n. 2

(Tex. App.—Austin 2021, pet. denied) (by increasing bond, trial court impliedly

found that security posted had become inadequate to cover appellee’s potential

damages).

In their response, appellees assert that appellants, in successfully arguing

that trust assets should be excluded from their net worth, told the trial court that

they were holding those assets in a constructive trust and that those assets were not

in any danger of loss or damage. Appellees identify the change in circumstance

being appellants’ assurance at the hearing setting the bond that the trust assets were

safe from loss turning out to be false. When the trial court subsequently ordered

appellants to place the trust assets into the court’s registry for safekeeping, they

were unable to fully comply. We agree with appellees that appellants’ failure to

keep the trust assets safe from loss is a changed circumstance permitting an

–6–
increase in the bond. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in increasing the amount of the supersedeas bond.

We affirm the trial court’s orders.

/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

230088NF.P05

–7–