In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX sent the matter back to the court of appeals. Issue one was the dispute over ex-husband’s net worth. After detailing the applicable statutes (§§ 52.006, .007) and TRAP 24.1 and 24.2, the Court noted that the parties agreed that the trial court’s determination of ex-husband’s net worth “depended entirely on its credibility determinations as to the value of [ex-husband’s] Entera shares.” As the Court can’t get into disputed facts in a mandamus proceeding, it could only hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in believing ex-wife’s valuation of the shares and, consequently, its determination of ex-husband’s net worth.
The Court, however, thought otherwise of the court of appeals’ determination under TRAP 24.1 that alternative security was available “only to judgment debtors whose net worth is less than $10 million.” As the Court pointed out, the Legislature added § 52.007, CPRC, in 2023, which required the adoption of TRAP 24.2 regarding the availability of alternative security where a judgment debtor has a net worth of less than $10 million. Pointing out that in the event a judgment debtor meets that standard, the judge is “required to allow alternative security ….” At the same time, however, trial courts retain discretion under TRAP 24.1 “to allow alternative security [] for judgment debtors with net worths of $10 million or more. The court of appeals thus “erred in concluding that the alternative-security option was categorically unavailable to” ex-husband. Mandamus was thus the appropriate remedy, so the Court instructed the court of appeals to consider whether ex-husband provided sufficient proof of the adequacy of the Entera stock certificate as alternative security. Although the Court expressed no opinion on the amount of ex-husband’s net worth, it did “note that if a court finds a judgment debtor’s net worth to require a $25 million supersedeas bond only because of the valuation of particular personal property, an unrestricted tender of that very property into the registry of the court generally will constitute adequate alternative security unless the record demonstrates a particular need for different treatment.”
This case should be of interest to trial lawyers who have to fight it out over net worth questions in the post-judgment phase of the game (as well as to appellate lawyers who might have to take the dispute to a higher level). It seems to indicate that SCOTX may be willing to cut cash-poor judgment debtors at least a little slack, even under § 52.006 and TRAP 24.1.
