SWB Secures $2.5 Million Judgment for Client

Saunders Walsh & Beard Secures $2.5 Million Judgment in Collin County Commercial Litigation

McKinney, TX – June 19, 2025 – Saunders Walsh & Beard is pleased to announce it has obtained a $2.5 million judgment in a recent commercial litigation case in Collin County’s 199th District Court (Cause No. 199-05058-2021). Chapman Bauerlein served as lead trial counsel in this complex business dispute, achieving a strong result through strategic trial advocacy.

This significant verdict underscores the firm’s unwavering dedication to results-driven litigation and client-centered service.

Saunders Walsh & Beard welcomes conversations with professionals and law firms interested in collaborating or referring complex commercial matters.

 

Contact:
214-919-3555
[email protected]

###

SWB’s Jacob D. Thomas Named “Best of D” 2025 by D Magazine

Attorney Jacob Thomas named Best of D 2025Jacob D. Thomas, partner at Saunders, Walsh & Beard, is being honored as “Best of D” 2025 for Construction & Business Litigation by D Magazine. Board Certified in Construction Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specializations, Jacob represents owners, general contractors, subcontractors, engineers, and suppliers in a broad range of disputes arising from commercial and residential construction projects.

Mr. Thomas emphasizes preparedness and draws on his knowledge and experience to formulate an approach that focuses on achieving his client’s goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. From the start of the case until its resolution, Mr. Thomas communicates with his client and offers him or her appropriate and useful guidance to enable his client to make informed decisions.

As a mediator, Jacob resolves conflicts involving commercial construction, residential construction, partner/shareholder litigation, and general business disputes. Jacob is one of only a handful of mediators based in Collin County focusing solely on commercial litigation.

In recognition of his ethical standards and exceptional results, Mr. Thomas has an Avvo “Superb” rating and an AV rating from Martindale, Texas Super Lawyers Rising Star (2015-2018), and Texas Super Lawyer (2020-present).

If you are facing challenges in construction or business litigation, don’t navigate these complexities alone. Contact Jacob D. Thomas today and discover how his expertise can help you achieve your goals efficiently and effectively. Visit Saunders, Walsh & Beard or call us at 214-919-3555 to get started.

Legislative Changes to 18.001 and What it Means to You

It’s fall in an odd-numbered year and that means only one thing in Texas–lawyers have a whole host of new and updated rules to learn after the recent legislative session.

One of the most substantive changes occurred in Chapter 18.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In the good old days (three months ago) a plaintiff could file an affidavit from a medical provider stating the amount charged for the services was reasonable and the medical services provided were necessary. If this affidavit was timely filed 30 days prior to trial (or 30 days prior to the date evidence was heard at trial), then the affidavit alone would be sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that the amounts charged were reasonable and necessary. Once filed, the burden was then on the defendant to show the charges were not reasonable and necessary by filing a controverting affidavit within 30 days of being served with the plaintiff’s affidavit. If the defendant did not file their own controverting affidavit within 30 days, then the defendant would not be able to contest the necessity and reasonableness of the charges at trial.

HB 1693 changes all of that.

The deadlines surrounding the new rule are the most important change. Now, plaintiffs must serve their 18.001 affidavit on a defendant within 90 days of the defendant filing an answer. This is vastly different than the previous 30 day before trial (first hearing of evidence) deadline and will result in fewer defendants being rushed to file a controverting affidavit on the eve of trial.

If a court orders, or a portion of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure set, the plaintiff’s expert designation earlier than 90 days after the defendant files its original answer, then plaintiff must serve its 18.001 affidavit by the earlier expert designation deadline. Simply put, if a court orders a plaintiff’s expert designation on a date 60 days after the defendant’s answer, then the plaintiff must file its 18.001 affidavit by its expert designation deadline, rather than the 90 days.

A defendant now has 120 days after the date they file their answer to serve their controverting affidavit. Similar to the rules for plaintiffs, defendants will have to serve their controverting affidavit earlier if a court orders the defendant’s expert designation for a time earlier than 120 days after defendant’s answer.

Practically speaking, this change will result in defendants receiving more complete sets of medical records at an earlier stage of litigation and it’s likely that service of 18.001 affidavits will now be included in agreed scheduling orders, removing doubt and adding efficiency to the litigation process.

Calculating Supersedeas Security

Calculating Supersedeas Security

If a party to a lawsuit wants to appeal the trial court’s judgment, it has to post security in the form of a supersedeas bond to suspend enforcement of the judgment during the appeal.  In Top Cat Ready Mix, LLC v. Alliance Trucking, LP, et al., the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals recently addressed the proper calculation of the amount of the supersedeas bond.

Instructions for calculating the amount of the supersedeas bond are set forth in Chapter 52 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.  Pursuant to the statute, “the amount of the security must equal the sum of:  1) the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the judgment; 2) interest for the estimated duration of the appeal; and 3) costs awarded in the judgment.”  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §52.006(a).  Unfortunately, the phrase “compensatory damages” is undefined.  In Top Cat Ready Mix, the court was tasked with interpreting the phrase “compensatory damages.”

The issue addressed in Top Cat Ready Mix is whether an award of contractual pre-judgment interest should be included as “compensatory damages” for purposes of calculating the amount of a supersedeas bond under Chapter 52.  The trial court’s judgment awarded the plaintiff $315,087.21 in “actual damages,” $198,739.63 in “contractual pre-judgment interest,” $70,000 in attorneys’ fees, and post-judgment interest.  The defendant superseded the judgment pending its appeal by posting a cash deposit in the amount of $371,802.90, reflecting the “actual damages” award, but not taking into account the “contractual pre-judgment interest.”  The plaintiff filed a Motion to Review Supersedeas Security with the appellate court seeking to increase the amount of the bond to include the “contractual pre-judgment interest.”

In its opinion dated December 27, 2018, the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals concluded that the phrase “compensatory damages” includes contractual pre-judgment interest.  The court turned to the Black’s Law Dictionary, the Texas Finance Code, and the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership, 406 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. 2013) to reach its conclusion.  While pre-judgment interest is “compensatory,” it is not considered an element of damage.  However, in its opinion, the court drew a distinction between pre-judgment interest and contractual interest.  “’Contract interest’ means interest that an obligor has promised or agreed to pay to a creditor under a written contract of the parties.  The term does not include judgment interest.”  Tex. Fin. Code §301.002(a)(1).  The court held, “While pre-judgment interest might not be compensatory damages, ‘contractual interest’ is ‘a part of the debt, as much so as the principal.’”  (citing First Nat’l Bank v. J.I. Campbell Co., 114 S.W. 887, 890 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1908, no writ).  Therefore, “contractual interest” is a “compensatory damage” for the purpose of calculating the amount of a supersedeas bond, while statutory “pre-judgment interest” is not.

The court’s opinion in Top Cat Ready Mix, LLC v. Alliance Trucking, LP, et al. provides guidance in both the drafting of judgments and the posting of security for an appeal.  When the amount of “pre-judgment interest” to be awarded is based upon the parties’ contract, it should be noted in the judgment as “contractual interest” and not as “pre-judgment interest.”  If the award recites the nature of the interest clearly, there should be less argument over the proper security needed to suspend enforcement of a judgment during appeal.

Contact Saunders, Walsh & Beard at 214-919-3555 for help with complex litigation matters by one of our AV-Rated attorneys in McKinney, TX.

Robert Garrey Joins Saunders Walsh and Beard as a New Partner

New Litigation Attorney Joins Collin County Firm

Saunders, Walsh & Beard is happy to announce the addition of Mr. Robert “Bob” Garrey as a Partner.

Bob’s business litigation expertise consists of trying cases in state and federal court in Texas and across the nation involving a broad range of commercial, real estate and financial/lending disputes, business torts, trade secret misappropriation, oil and gas, defamation/invasion of privacy cases, and litigation resulting from competitive bidding for state and federal government outsourcing contracts. Bob frequently represents startups, technology companies, and their executives in private company disputes, fiduciary litigation and arbitration, and has often been retained by out of state law firms to serve as local counsel in state and federal court matters in Texas.

In the employment arena, Bob has successfully represented companies and individuals involved in Trade Secret and Non-compete disputes, FLSA and ERISA class actions, departing executive compensation, commission and severance disputes, discrimination claims and EEOC investigations.

Welcome Bob!

View Bob’s bio here