Court Opinion

ID: 9368601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 07:07:59.064572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.349555
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                           FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                          ORDER

Appellate case name:        Senior Care Living VI, LLC and Mark Bouldin v. Preston
                            Hollow Capital, LLC, UMB Bank, N.A., and TMI Trust
                            Company
Appellate case number:      01-21-00602-CV
Trial court case number:    19-DCV-265897
Trial court:                458th District Court of Fort Bend County
       On November 1, 2021, Appellants, Senior Care Living VI, LLC and Mark Bouldin,
have appealed from the trial court’s August 4, 2021 Final Judgment and Order Appointing
Post-Judgment Receiver. In its Final Judgment, the trial court awarded damages of
approximately $50 million, in favor of Appellees, Preston Hollow Capital, LLC, UMB
Bank, N.A., and TMI Trust Company (collectively, “appellees”).
       The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed on December 17, 2021. After multiple
extensions were granted, the reporter’s record was filed on May 25, 2022. Accordingly,
Appellants’ brief(s) were initially due to be filed no later than June 24, 2022. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.6(a). Following extensions, Appellants’ briefs were filed September 19, 2022.
      Appellees’ brief(s) were therefore initially due to be filed no later than October 19,
2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). Following extensions, Appellees’ briefs were filed on
December 2, 2022.
       Separately, on July 6, 2022, Appellees filed a “Supplemental [Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure] 24.4 Motion for Review of Supersedeas Ruling,” challenging the trial
court’s July 6, 2022 supersedeas order regarding the deposit in lieu of bond paid by Senior
Care. Also on July 6, 2022, Senior Care filed a “Motion for Review Under Rule 24.4,”
challenging the trial court’s July 6, 2022 supersedeas order.
      On July 28, 2022, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss Senior Care’s motion to
review the July 6, 2022 supersedeas order. The parties also filed responses to these
cross-motions as well as replies in support of their respective motions.
      On January 31, 2023, the Court issued its opinion on the parties’ cross-motions to
review the trial court’s July 6, 2022 supersedeas order, as well as Appellees’ motion to
dismiss Senior Care’s motion to review the trial court’s July 6, 2022 supersedeas order.
      On January 11, 2023, Appellees filed a “Rule 24.4 Motion for Review of
Supersedeas Ruling as to Appellant Mark C. Bouldin,” challenging the trial court’s
November 15, 2022 supersedeas order regarding the deposit in lieu of bond paid by
Bouldin.
        On January 18, 2023, Appellees filed a “Motion for Expedited Consideration of
Case Merits and Pending Motions,” requesting that this Court “expedite its consideration
of the case merits and pending motions in the interest of justice.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 40.1
(tilted “Order of Decision”). In their motion, Appellees state that this “case has been
long-delayed,” and has been “on file for more than [fourteen] months without submission
for consideration,” which is “more than double the statewide 6.6-month average” of Texas
appellate cases.
       This Court generally sets an appeal “at-issue,” making it ripe for submission, after
all appellees have filed their briefs. Here, while the final judgment appealed was entered
on August 4, 2021, Appellees did not file their briefs until December 2, 2022, thirteen
months after Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed, and more than six months after the
appellate record was completed.
        As Appellees note in their motion, the order of decisions for appellate courts is
governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.1, which states that the “court of
appeals may determine the order in which civil cases will be decided.” See TEX. R. APP.
P. 40.1. There is a limited category of cases that are entitled to “precedence,” including:
(a) a case given precedence by law; (b) an accelerated appeal; and (c) a case that the court
determines should be given precedence in the interest of justice. Id.
        We conclude that this appeal does not meet any of these criteria. We dismiss the
motion to expedite as moot with respect to the motions disposed of in this Court’s January
31, 2023 opinion. The Court will consider the January 11, 2023 motion for review of the
trial court’s November 15, 2022 supersedeas order at the earliest practicable time. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(d).
       Appellees’ Motion for Expedited Consideration is denied.
       It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ April Farris_______
                    Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __February 2, 2023____________________

                                             2