Appeal Bonds in Multi-Defendant Cases: In re Greystar Development & Construction, L.P.

We won a large judgment against several related companies. They’ve appealed. Do they have to post one appeal bond between them, or one each?

The Supreme Court of Texas answered that question this spring in In re Greystar Development & Construction, L.P., 741 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding). The vote was 5–4, and the answer was: one each.

What happened. In 2019 a construction crane collapsed during a storm in Dallas and struck an apartment building, killing a resident, Kiersten Smith. Her parents sued three affiliated Greystar entities and the crane company. The jury found that the three Greystar entities were operating as a joint enterprise, held them responsible for Smith’s death, and awarded roughly $360 million in non-economic damages plus $500 million in exemplary damages, which the trial court reduced under the statutory caps. The judgment made the three entities jointly and severally liable for the compensatory award. 741 S.W.3d at 37.

The bond. A defendant who appeals a money judgment in Texas can stop the plaintiff from collecting while the appeal is pending by posting security — usually a bond — in the amount of the compensatory damages plus interest and costs. The Legislature has capped that amount, however: the bond need not exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the judgment debtor’s net worth or $25 million. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.006(a)–(b). The three Greystar entities posted a single $25 million bond, jointly, to suspend the judgment as to all of them.

The plaintiffs objected. Their position was that the $25 million cap applies to each defendant, so one bond could cover only one of the three. The trial court agreed, ruled that the joint bond could suspend the judgment against one entity at most, and declared that until the defendants filed individual bonds, no valid bond was in place — which meant the plaintiffs could begin collecting from the other two. The Dallas court of appeals upheld that ruling. Id. at 37–38.

The Court’s holding. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Busby, held that the cap applies per judgment debtor. The reasoning started with the statute’s definitions: “security” is defined as “a bond … posted … by a judgment debtor to suspend execution of the judgment,” and the cap says “the amount of security … must not exceed” $25 million or half “the judgment debtor’s net worth.” §§ 52.001, 52.006(b). Reading those together, the Court concluded that the cap limits the bond a debtor posts to suspend the judgment against itself, not the total of all bonds posted by everyone. Id. at 36, 38.

The Court also pointed to the surrounding law. Execution, garnishment, appellate rights, and supersedeas practice are all party-specific — each defendant files its own notice of appeal, each is subject to its own writ, and each debtor who wants to stop collection has long been required to post security for the full amount it owes. A per-judgment cap, the Court said, would be in tension with that structure and would force courts to invent exceptions the statute doesn’t contain. Id. at 39–47. As for policy, the majority noted that the $25 million cap is only one of several routes the Legislature has provided for reducing a bond, and saw no reason to read this one as broadly as possible. Id. at 48–49.

The remedy. Although the trial court was right about the cap, the Court held it abused its discretion by invalidating the joint bond immediately as to two of the entities, without giving them time to post their own. Drawing on the 20-day cure periods elsewhere in Rule 24, the Court said parties should presumptively be allowed 20 days to fix a bond found insufficient under the cap, and sent the case back with instructions to allow the two entities a reasonable time to post sufficient bonds. Id. at 50.

The dissent. Justice Huddle, joined by Justices Bland, Young, and Sullivan, agreed the trial court shouldn’t have invalidated the bond without notice but disagreed with the majority’s reading of the cap. In the dissent’s view, the statute caps neither per debtor nor per judgment but per bond: joint supersedeas bonds have been permitted in Texas for well over a century, the Government Code says the singular includes the plural, and nothing in § 52.006 says “$25 million per judgment debtor.” The dissent warned that the majority’s rule “drives up the cost of appeals in multi-defendant cases,” may require defendants to post more security than the judgment itself, and will “reverberate most loudly in nuclear-verdict cases.” Id. at 51–54 (Huddle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

What it appears to mean. For a plaintiff holding a judgment against multiple defendants — related entities in particular — the decision seems to increase the security that must be posted before an appeal can proceed without collection, and to foreclose the use of a single capped bond to cover a family of companies. For defendants, it suggests that the way a business is structured carries consequences on appeal as well as at trial: separate entities get separate bond obligations. The 20-day cure period gives a defendant whose bond is challenged some room to respond. And the 5–4 split, together with the dissent’s direct appeal to the Legislature’s purpose, leaves open the possibility that the question will be revisited in Austin.

Rehearing was denied on September 18, 2026.

See also our overview of the tools for collecting a Texas judgment.

Mandamus Available When Trial Court Refuses to Decide a Motion

Is mandamus available if a trial court refuses to rule on a motion?

Yes.  The act of considering and ruling on a properly filed motion is a ministerial act. In re Bonds, 57 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding).  Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, a demand for performance, and a refusal to act.  O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992).  Although a trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform its ministerial duty to rule on a pending motion, In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 740-41 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding), a trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion when it refuses to rule on a properly filed motion. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992).  There is no adequate remedy at law for a trial court’s failure to rule because “[f]undamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity to be heard.”  See In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250, 251 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2000, orig. proceeding) (citing Creel v. Dist. Atty. for Medina Cnty., 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. 1991)).

Mandamus Available for Continuance of Special Appearance Hearing

Does a trial court abuse its discretion if it continues a special appearance hearing even though the plaintiff has not followed the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a?

Yes.  If a plaintiff, prior to a hearing on a special appearance, does not file affidavits proving he needs a continuance to obtain essential discovery, the trial court abuses its discretion if it continues the special appearance hearing to allow discovery.  See IRN Realty Corp. v. Hernandez, 300 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. App – Eastland 2009, no pet.)(holding trial court abused its discretion by granting motion to compel and abating special appearance hearing to allow plaintiff to conduct additional discovery because plaintiff did not follow procedures for continuance under Rule 120a(3)); see also Washington DC Party Shuttle, LLC v. IGuide Tours, 406 S.W.3d 723, 739 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed)(holding plaintiff did not follow procedures under Rule 120a(3) for discovery continuance).  “Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a governs special appearances,” and “Rule 120a ‘specifically provides for the means to obtain a continuance of the special appearance so that . . . [additional discovery] may be conducted: affidavits of the party opposing the special appearance.’”   In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828, 836-839 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding)(quoting IRN Realty Corp. v. Hernandez, 300 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. App – Eastland 2009, no pet.)); see also Said v. Maria Invs., Inc., No. 01-08-00962-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 959, 2010 WL 457463, at *3 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("Rule 120a(3) gives the trial court the discretion to continue a special appearance hearing and thereby extend the time in which evidence may be served, but this power applies only to a party opposing the special appearance who avers that he cannot adequately prepare for the special appearance hearing.")(emphasis added); see also Parex Resources, Inc. v. ERG Resources, LLC, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 880, *66 fn. 34 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 28, 2014).

Availablity of Mandamus

When is mandamus available?

Mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998).  Mandamus relief may be justified when: (1) the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court's discovery error, such as when privileged information or trade secrets would be revealed or production of patently irrelevant or duplicative documents imposing a disproportionate burden on the producing party is ordered; (2) the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense is severely compromised or vitiated by the erroneous discovery ruling to the extent that it is effectively denied the ability to develop the merits of its case; or (3) the trial court's discovery order disallows discovery that cannot be made a part of the appellate record, thereby denying the reviewing court the ability to evaluate the effect of the trial court's error.  In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998)(citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843-44 (Tex. 1992)).  A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly.  In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005).

Writ of Mandamus

What is mandamus?

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that allows an appellate court to review a ruling made by a trial court even though the trial court has not yet made a final judgment in the case and a normal appellate remedy is not available.  See, e.g., Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).

Appeal of Overly Broad Discovery Orders

Is a court’s order that compels overly broad discovery appealable?

"An order that compels overly broad discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy."  In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). An overbroad request is improper regardless of whether it is burdensome. In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 227 S.W.3d 667, 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).  A discovery request is "overbroad" when it encompasses "time periods, products, or activities beyond those at issue in the case" and, therefore, is not "reasonably tailored to include only relevant matters."  In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 180 n.1 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding); see also Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d at 820;  In re Graco Children's Prods., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding).

Appellate Review of Orders Compelling Disclosure of Trade Secrets

Is a court’s order compelling the discovery of trade secrets appealable?

Yes.  Because improper disclosure of a trade secret cannot be adequately remedied on appeal, mandamus relief is appropriate.  See In re Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d 589, 593 (Tex. 2009)(orig. proceeding).