Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

the right to supersede enforcement. Thus, the right protected by Rule 24 is the right to
supersede the judgment.
A stay is not necessary to preserve the McCulloughs’ right to supersede the
judgment because the McCulloughs failed to show that they cannot post security of
$371,800.00. Since they already posted security of $162,800.00, the McCulloughs had the
ability to supersede the judgment by posting an additional $209,000.00. The trial court
found that the McCulloughs have sufficient unencumbered cash or other assets on hand
to be able to post a bond or cash deposit for an additional $209,000.00, including
between $51,000.00 and $64,154.00 in cash, $312,900.00 in retirement accounts, and
$100,000.00 in personal effects and jewelry. 4 The trial court also found that it is not
likely the McCulloughs will suffer substantial economic harm if required to post a
supersedeas bond of $371,800.00. 5 These evidentiary findings are not subject to factual
sufficiency review by the Texas Supreme Court. See In re Ron Smith, 192 S.W.3d 564, 568
n. 3 (Tex. 2006). If the McCulloughs had posted the full $371,800.00 security, the
judgment would be superseded, all enforcement action would stop, and their assets,
including the supersedeas deposit, would be protected from seizure. Therefore, a stay
of the judgment is not necessary to protect the McCulloughs’ right to supersede the
judgment.
The present status quo is the McCulloughs are judgment debtors owing over $1.2
million dollars, the McCulloughs failed to post the security required by the trial court
4 Order on Supersedeas Bond, 21. While a copy of this Order is attached as Exhibit B to the Appendix
to the McCulloughs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, a copy of the Order is attached hereto for convenient
reference as Exhibit 4.
5 Order on Supersedeas Bond, 19.
5