NUMBER 13-20-00350-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN THE MATTER OF BUMSTEAD FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST
On appeal from the Probate Court No. 1
of Harris County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
On August 10, 2020, this Court ordered a partial stay of the trial court’s “Order
Suspending Powers of Trustee and Appointing Receiver,” which was signed by the trial
court on July 20, 2020, and which is the subject of this appeal. On August 20, 2020, after
further briefing, we issued a separate order providing that our stay would remain in effect.
On March 11, 2021, this Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
ordering appellant Taylor C. Moss1 to file a bond in the amount of $10,000,000. Accordingly,
we sustained the trial court’s order requiring Moss to post the bond.
Currently before the Court is “Appellees’ Motion to Modify Stay Order In Light of
Developments During 2021.”2 Appellees assert that Moss has not filed the bond as ordered
and continues to mismanage and deplete trust assets. They request that we “modify [our]
stay orders of August 10, 2020 and August 20, 2020 to allow the receiver to post his own
$10 million dollar bond and to proceed under the trial court’s supervision” as provided in
the trial court’s July 20, 2020 order.
This Court requested and received a response to the motion to modify from
appellants. Appellants assert that appellees are attempting to “create a new order based
on new events,” dispute appellees’ allegations of misuse and depletion, contend that
appellees are to blame for certain specified damages, claim that Moss has acted properly
and diligently, and argue that appellees are attempting to obtain Moss’s personal property
by virtue of a temporary order. Appellants also assert that the “application of mandatory
supersedeas bond rules is currently being litigated in the trial court.” Finally, appellants
have also moved to strike the “new evidence” that appellees filed in support of their motion
to modify.
Appellees have filed a reply to appellant’s response.
1
Appellants include Taylor C. Moss, individually, as trustee of the TCM Trust; the Bumstead Living
Trust; the Bumstead Family Trust; the Bumstead Survivor’s Trust; and the Sylvia M. Bumstead Revocable
Trust, and as Manager of Wolf Trot Properties, LLC and Wolf Trot Properties d/b/a Melia Investments, LLC,
DeisoMoss, LLC and DeisoMoss Property Management, LLC.
2
Appellees include Debra M. Holzworth, Kathryn S. Marcotte, and Carol Bumstead Moss, Individually,
as Trustees of their respective Exempt Trusts, as Trustees of their respective Descendant’s Trusts, as Co-
Trustees of the Bumstead Family Irrevocable Trust, and as Named Co-Trustees of the Bumstead Family Trust.
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered “Appellees’ Motion to Modify Stay
Order In Light of Developments During 2021” and appellant’s response thereto, is of the
opinion that appellees’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part. For numerous
reasons, we conclude that the motion should be granted insofar as this matter should be
abated and remanded to the trial court for its consideration. First, according to appellants,
issues pertaining to the bond and supersedeas are actively being litigated at this time in
the trial court. The intersection between trial court and appellate court jurisdiction with
regard to the enforcement and suspension of a judgment can be challenging to ascertain
during the pendency of an appeal, and we wish to clarify the trial court’s jurisdiction in this
matter. Second, the trial court has already expended substantial time and resources on the
issues presented here and has the ability to handle any additional fact-finding necessary.
Third, and finally, the dispute currently before the Court is engendered in primary part
because Moss has failed to comply with the trial court’s order requiring him to post a bond.
The effect of Moss’s failure to comply with the trial court’s order should be devoted to that
court’s sound discretion.
Accordingly, we abate and remand this case for the purposes expressed herein. We
grant appellees’ motion in part insofar as we lift our stay to the extent necessary for the trial
court to fully consider these matters and to issue any orders it deems appropriate under
the circumstances. Without circumscribing the trial court’s discretion regarding the course
of events described by the parties, we caution against orders on the merits regarding the
ownership of disputed assets to the extent that such orders could render all or part of this
appeal moot. We deny appellees’ motion to modify in all other aspects. Given our action in
remanding the issues presented here to the trial court, we dismiss as moot appellants’
3
motion to strike the “new evidence” attached to appellees’ motion. We direct the trial court
to file supplemental records regarding these proceedings on remand.
In conclusion, we note that this appeal has now been fully briefed, and the issues
presented are currently under consideration by the Court on the merits.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the
24th day of June, 2021.
4