The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that Appellate Rule 24.3(a)(3) cannot be invoked to allow an Appellee to provide a “reverse supersedeas bond” when doing so denies an Appellant its appeal.
In Hydroscience Technologies Inc. v. Hydroscience Inc., Hydroscience, Inc. obtained a declaratory judgment declaring that it owned shares of preferred stock in Hydroscience Technologies and giving it a right to examine Hydroscience Technologies’ company books. Hydroscience Technologies appealed this judgment. The trial court denied Hydroscience Technologies the right to supersede the judgment and allowed Hydroscience Inc. to post a “reverse supersedeas” bond in the amount of $10,000 so as to allow Hydroscience Inc. to examine the company books while the judgment was on appeal. Hydroscience Technologies filed a motion with the court of appeals to review the trial court’s denial of its supersedeas request.
After pointing out that Hydroscience Technologies was appealing the trial court’s judgment that granted the right to inspect its company books, the court of appeals noted that once Hydroscience Inc. is allowed to inspect the books pursuant to the supersedeas order, then the damage to the right to an effective appeal has been done. The court held that Rule 24.3(a)(3)’s “reverse supersedeas” provision does not give the trial court discretion to deny an Appellant its appeal. The court’s opinion may be found here.