Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

App. – Dallas 2010, pet. denied). 12 The trial court also concluded that the judgment is
not a probable liability the amount of which can be reasonably estimated applying
applicable accounting standards. 13 The trial court concluded the tax liabilities are not
current tax liabilities and are not probable liabilities the amount of which can be
reasonably estimated, applying applicable accounting standards. 14 The trial court
specifically found that the testimony of the McCulloughs’ CPA expert, Thomas Stewart,
was not credible because his estimates of tax liability were based on contingencies that
have not occurred. 15
The Dallas Court of Appeals’ holding in Anderton, and now the McCullough 16
opinion, that a judgment on appeal is excluded from the net worth calculation because
it is a contingent liability, represents the correct and prevailing view in Texas courts of
appeal. See, e.g., Business Staffing, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS
3343 * 10 - 11 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding).
However, even if a judgment liability is not excluded because it is a contingent
liability, in this case the trial court made factual findings that under applicable
accounting principles, the judgment should be excluded from the net worth calculation.
The trial court concluded that the judgment is not a probable liability the amount of
which can be reasonably estimated applying applicable accounting standards. 17 The
trial court’s Order specifically discussed the testimony of the McCulloughs’ witnesses,
12 See Order on Supersedeas Bond, Findings of Fact, 5 – 13; Conclusions of Law, 1.
13 See Order on Supersedeas Bond, Findings of Fact, 13.
14 See Order on Supersedeas Bond, Findings of Fact, 14; Conclusions of Law, 2.
15 See Order on Supersedeas Bond, Findings of Fact, 15 – 17.
16 McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assoc., 362 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding).
17 See Order on Supersedeas Bond, Findings of Fact, 13.
9