Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Thomas Stewart – pp. 59 to 82 Robert McCullough – pp. 83 to 89 Exhibit 4, Notice of Appeal – p. 130 Exhibit 5, Docketing Statement – p. 133 Exhibit 6, Personal Financial Statement – p. 143 Exhibit 7, FASB standards (450-20-20, et. seq.) – p. 145 Volume 6 Robert McCullough – pp. 5 to 79 Exhibit 1, “Deposits into Bank of America Account” – p. 83 Exhibit 2, Bank of America statements – p. 85 Attached hereto is an Appendix which includes the following: A. Order on Supersedeas Bond; 11 B. Opinion in Anderton v. Cawley, 326 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2010, orig. proceeding); and C. The McCulloughs’ sworn financial statement. 12 V. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY A. The judgment liability was properly excluded from net worth. Section 52.006 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and Rule 24.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a judgment debtor to post a supersedeas bond or deposit for at least 50% of the debtor’s net worth, not to exceed $25 million. Rule 24.2(a)(1) makes it clear that net worth means current net worth. 11 SCR 331. 12 SCR 54. APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER ON SUPERSEDEAS BOND – Page 6
(i) Anderton compels exclusion of the judgment liability. In Anderton v. Cawley, 326 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App. – Dallas, 2010, orig. proceeding), this Court addressed the question of whether a money judgment on appeal is properly included as a liability in the net worth calculation for purposes of determining current net worth in the supersedeas bond analysis. In an opinion by Chief Justice Carolyn Wright, the Court held that the plain language of Rule 24 does not include a contingent money judgment in calculating net worth. Anderton, 326 S.W.3d at 726. 13 The McCulloughs wish to ignore the clear holding in Anderton that a contingent money judgment is not includable in the net worth calculation and, instead, read Anderton as a decision limited to the facts of that case where the trial court accepted one expert’s opinion about whether a judgment liability is probable over another. See Motion to Review, p. 9-10. However, the Anderton opinion leaves no room for doubt: “the plain language of the statute does not include a contingent money judgment in calculating net worth.” Anderton, 326 S.W.3d at 726. The Court’s construction of Rule 24 in Anderton as excluding a contingent money judgment in the determination of current net worth is reasonable. 14 First, Rule 24 is concerned with “current” liabilities. By definition, a current liability does not include a 13 The Court should note that the judgment debtor in Anderton filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court on the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering an order that refused to include the judgment in the calculation of net worth. See copy of Petition at RR 115. The Texas Supreme Court denied the Petition on November 24, 2010. See copy of docket entry from Texas Supreme Court’s website at RR 126. 14 The Court must give a reasonable construction to rules and statutes, and a court should not construe a rule or statute in a way that leads to absurd results. See City of Rockwall v. Hughs, 246 S.W.621, 625-26 (“[W]e construe the statute’s words according to their plain meaning unless a contrary intention is apparent from the context or unless such construction leads to absurd results.”). APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER ON SUPERSEDEAS BOND – Page 7
Page 1 and 2: NO. 12-0454 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 3 and 4: SMA contested the McCullough’s cl
Page 5 and 6: III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES The McC
Page 7 and 8: and, as a result, the judgment is n
Page 9 and 10: On June 6, 2012, the McCulloughs fi
Page 11 and 12: including the testimony of Robert M
Page 13 and 14: effectively supersede the judgment
Page 15 and 16: NO. 12-0454 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 17 and 18: SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me o
Page 19 and 20: Order issued Febrwu'y 7 , 2012 lJii
Page 21 and 22: Thompson, Dishict Clerk of Collin C
Page 23 and 24: 2. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiffs f
Page 25 and 26: the circumstances existing at the t
Page 27 and 28: "'all" McCulIoughs have additional
Page 29 and 30: $90,000.00 of their assets to third
Page 31 and 32: No. 05-11-01303-CV IN THE COURT OF
Page 33 and 34: amounts for future income taxes, $3
Page 35: S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) (citing
Page 39 and 40: has not done so. 19 And, the McCull
Page 41 and 42: have been counted as a liability fo
Page 43 and 44: liability is “reasonably possible
Page 45 and 46: While Melton’s testimony provides
Page 47 and 48: unknown. 61 Shilling did not tell S
Page 49 and 50: Other than some additional depositi
Page 51 and 52: McCulloughs are appealing the entir
Page 53 and 54: the misappropriated funds. 80 Stewa
Page 55 and 56: Once the contest is resolved and th
Page 57 and 58: overwhelming weight of the evidence
Page 59 and 60: testimony. 97 The trial court also
Page 61 and 62: Second, the McCulloughs argue that
Page 63 and 64: judgment debtor. It is only substan
Page 65 and 66: asset to pay litigation costs, they
Page 67 and 68: personal effects and jewelry, more
Page 69 and 70: McCulloughs to post an additional $
Page 71 and 72: CAUSE NO. 416-02008-2009 SCARBROUGH
Page 73 and 74: ---_.......----..............- __ _
Page 75 and 76: However, Stewart and Robert McCullo
Page 77 and 78: 6/10/11 -7/8/11 7/9/11-8/10/11 8/11
Page 79 and 80: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defend
Page 81 and 82: 326 S.W.3d 725, *; 2010 Tex. App. L
Page 83 and 84: MR. AND MRS. ROBERT MCCULLOUGH FINA
Page 85 and 86: ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT Mr.
Page 87 and 88:
NOTE A - BASIS OF ACCOUNTING MR.AND
Page 89 and 90:
Docket Sheet for: 05-11-01303-CV of
Page 91 and 92:
Docket Sheet for: 05-11-01303-CV of
Page 93 and 94:
Search http://apps.collincountytx.g
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
show all

Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?