Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court answered a significant question in post-judgment practice, holding that the $25-million statutory cap on the amount required to supersede a money judgment applies per judgment debtor, not per judgment. The 5-4 opinion resolved a split among Texas courts of appeals and provided welcome clarity to the State's supersedeas regime, outlined in Chapter 52 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 

The case, In re Greystar Development & Construction, L.P., involved a jury verdict of over $360 million in compensatory damages against three joint-enterprise entities. Seeking to supersede enforcement, the three entities filed a $25-million joint bond, which the trial court temporarily vacated after concluding Section 52.006(b)'s $25-million cap applied per judgment debtor, not per judgment. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the Greystar entities' motion for appellate review, agreeing with the trial court that Section 52.006(b)'s $25-million cap applied per judgment debtor. 

In an opinion authored by Justice Busby and joined by Chief Justice Blacklock and Justices Lehrmann, Devine, and Hawkins, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court “set the stage” by examining post-judgment procedures generally, finding that many of them—from writs of garnishment to appellate rights—are judgment-debtor specific before concluding it “follows that supersedeas practice is also debtor-specific.” Interpreting Chapter 52's text against this “backdrop” confirmed the conclusion: Because the "security" capped by Section 52.006(b) is defined as "a bond or deposit posted . . . by a judgment debtor" in Section 52.001, a straightforward combination of the provisions means Section 52.006(b)'s cap applies per judgment debtor, not per judgment. 

The majority further outlined the shortcomings in alternative interpretations. It first explained the dissent's “bond”-based interpretation was contrary to the statutory text, unsupported by historical practice, and relied on an interpretative canon that raised more questions than it answered. The majority also concluded interpreting the cap to apply per judgment as the Greystar entities urged “would lead to results even [they] admit are wrong" and a statutory scheme that applies a per-judgment cap in some circumstances and a per-judgment-debtor cap in others. 

• Supersedeas strategy now must be defendant-specific. In multi-defendant cases, a single $25-million bond will not necessarily suspend execution against everyone. Each judgment debtor must account for its own cap—whether through separate bonds, a joint bond that secures the combined capped amount, or another reduction mechanism under Chapter 52.
• Joint defense groups should plan for post-judgment security before the verdict. The decision makes bond allocation, indemnity rights, surety capacity, and contribution issues harder to leave for later—especially where co-defendants have different balance sheets, insurance positions, or appellate incentives. A joint bond remains possible, but only if it gives the creditor the same protection as separate bonds would.
• The cure holding matters too. The Court's presumptive 20-day cure window provides defendants with an important procedural backstop when bond sufficiency is challenged.
• Expect this issue to return to the Legislature. Framing the decision as increasing the cost of appeals in multi-defendant cases and potentially requiring security beyond the judgment in some scenarios, the dissent expressly suggested the Legislature may wish to revisit whether Chapter 52, as written, strikes the right balance.