Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

ejecting evidence presented by the McCulloughs. See Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters
League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex. 1990).
The remainder of the McCulloughs’ mandamus challenge is directed at the trial
court’s findings and conclusion that it is not likely the McCulloughs will suffer
substantial economic harm by posting an additional $209,000.00 in security. However,
the trial court made detailed findings of fact regarding the McCulloughs’ ability to post
the additional security without suffering substantial economic harm and those findings
are not subject to factual sufficiency review by this Court. The McCulloughs argue that
the trial court cannot consider exempt assets in deciding whether they are likely to
suffer substantial economic harm if they have to post an additional $209,000.00 in
security. However, they cite no controlling precedent and fail to explain the glaring
contradiction in counting exempt assets in establishing net worth (to which the
McCulloughs did not object), but not counting those same assets in deciding whether
substantial economic harm is likely.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The equitable maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied,” should guide the
Court’s decision on the McCullough’s request for yet another emergency stay of
enforcement of the judgment. The McCulloughs failed to show that a stay of
enforcement is necessary to protect their rights or that a stay is just. The McCulloughs’
request for a stay represents their latest attempt to delay SMA in enforcing its judgment
against the McCulloughs, a judgment that was primarily due to Robert McCullough’s
theft of SMA’s money. The McCulloughs have used abusive dilatory tactics to
11