Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
MAGELLAN TERMINALS HOLDINGS, L.P., AND PAUL R. WILSON, AS RECEIVER OF MEXAM EXPORT IMPORT CORPORATION, Appellants,
HECTOR VARGAS, ET AL., Appellees.
appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County,
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina
Magellan Terminals Holdings, L.P. and Paul R. Wilson as
Receiver of Mexam Export Import Corporation, bring this
interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction granted in
favor of appellee Hector Vargas. Currently before the Court
is appellants' "Emergency Motion for Adequate
Temporary Injunction Bond or Other Relief."
argue that the temporary injunction bond of $1, 000 set by
the trial court is inadequate to "protect [a]ppellants
from the imminent risk of substantial loss [a]ppellants may
suffer in the event that the Temporary Injunction . . . is
dissolved in whole or part." Appellants request this
Court to exercise its authority under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29.3 and order Vargas to provide an adequate
temporary injunction bond or to grant other appropriate
relief as necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 provides in pertinent part:
"When an appeal from an interlocutory order is
perfected, the appellate court may make any temporary orders
necessary to preserve the parties' rights until
disposition of the appeal and may require appropriate
security." Id. The rule authorizes courts of
appeals, during interlocutory appeals, to "make any
temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties'
rights." In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d
82, 87 (Tex. 2019) (quoting Tex.R.App.P. 29.3).
"Although Rule 29.3 does not say so explicitly, the
authority it grants to issue 'any temporary order'
naturally includes only the authority to issue orders that
are consistent with the law." Id. at 88
(quoting Tex.R.App.P. 29.3).
that the temporary injunction bond was set by the trial court
in the first instance pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 684. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 684. Rule 684
states in relevant part that "[i]n the order granting
any temporary restraining order or temporary injunction, the
court shall fix the amount of security to be given by the
applicant." Id. Before the issuance of the
temporary injunction, the applicant must execute and file
with the clerk a bond "in the sum fixed by the
judge[.]" Id. The purpose of a bond as a
condition to the granting of a temporary injunction is to
secure the payment for the party against whom the injunction
is issued, including the amount of the monetary damages which
it sustains as a result of the injunction, and costs, in the
event the injunction is subsequently held to be wrongfully
issued and is dissolved. See id.; IAC, Ltd. v.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191, 203
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
amount of a temporary injunction bond is within the trial
court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on
appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Khaledi v.
H.K. Global Trading, Ltd., 126 S.W.3d 273, 286
(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Four Stars Food
Mart, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 923
S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ). The
determination of the adequacy of the bond is made on a
case-by-case basis based upon the record before the reviewing
court. Maples v. Muscletech, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 429,
431 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.). An appellate court is
unable to determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion where the parties do not present evidence to the
trial court concerning the amount of the bond. See
Hartwell v. Lone Star, PCA, 528 S.W.3d 750, 770
(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2017, pet. dism'd) ("Without
some evidence that would support a higher bond amount, we
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
setting the bond amount."). Furthermore, a challenge to
the adequacy of the bond on appeal is subject to traditional
notions of error preservation. See Khaledi, 126
S.W.3d at 286 (concluding that a complaint regarding the
amount of the bond set pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 684 must be raised in the trial court);
Matagorda Cty. Hosp. Dist. v. City of Palacios, 47
S.W.3d 96, 104 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001,
no pet.) (same).
appellants failed to contest the amount of the bond in the
trial court. As a result, there is no record from which we
can assess whether the trial court abused its discretion in
setting the bond amount as it did. See Hartwell, 528
S.W.3d at 770; Khaledi, 126 S.W.3d at 286; City
of Palacios, 47 S.W.3d at 104. In light of the
foregoing, we conclude that appellants have not established
grounds for relief pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Court, having examined and fully considered the matters on
file herein, is of the opinion that appellants are not
entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we DENY
appellants' "Emergency Motion for ...