The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief in a sanctions dispute in In re Casey, No. 18-0289 (Nov. 22, 2019), holding:
“In Braden v. Downey, we declined to consider the propriety of monetary sanctions by mandamus, holding instead that payment of monetary sanctions must be deferred until rendition of an appealable judgment if (1) the sanctioned party contends immediate payment would impair access to the courts and (2) the trial court does not promptly hold a hearing and make express written findings to the contrary. . . .
According to [real party in interest], Braden’s deferral mandate is implicated only when a sanctions award rises to the level of a penalty that impedes resolution of the case on the merits. While it is true that the monetary sanction in Braden significantly exceeded the opponent’s compensable attorney’s fees, Braden is not limited in th[at] way . . .
Braden’s focus is on the effect of a monetary sanction that must be paid before it can be
superseded and appealed, not on a specific amount or purpose of the sanction. . . . [A]n opposing party may be awarded sanctions before an appealable judgment is rendered, but neither Chapter 10 nor Rule 13 creates a right to payment before supersedeas is available. Braden concerns are implicated based on a sanction order’s requirement that the sanction be paid in advance of an appealable judgment,”
