Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02045/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. H. Burghart
Appellant
Frisch's Restaurants, Inc.
Appellee
E. L. Gosselin
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

H. H. BURGHART and E. L. GOSSELIN, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 1 71989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

No. 86-2045 

FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-83-855-W) 

Robert E. Bacharach (David L. Thomas and Robert G. McCampbell on 

the brief) of Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Robert H. Warren of Warren, Ricks , & Associates, P.C., Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

This diversity litigation arose from a complaint filed under 

the Oklahoma forcible entry and detainer statutes, Okla. Stat. 

tit. 12 §§ 1148 .1-1148 .16 (1981) . We need not pause to recount 

the proceedings in the district court other than to note that the 

Appellate Case: 86-2045 Document: 01019678083 Date Filed: 01/17/1989 Page: 1 
plaintiffs prevailed in a jury trial. The defendant appealed to 

this court and simultaneously obtained a stay of the judgment by 

posting a $35,000 supersedeas bond. Under the terms of the bond, 

the defendant was required to continue its rental payments of $900 

per month while the parties awaited this court's decision. If the 

rent was paid, the defendant's obligations under the bond would be 

discharged. On December 26, 1985, we affirmed the judgment 

entered on the verdict. The defendant vacated the premises on 

April 1, 1986. 

After our mandate issued, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to 

Vacate Stay and for Supplemental Relief in district court. In 

their motion the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 

recover their losses caused by the defendant's continued presence 

on the property during the pendency of the appeal. They further 

contended that if they had been able to obtain possession of their 

property on August 17, 1983, the premises could have been rented 

to another tenant at the market rate of $4,100 per month. 

The district court vacated the stay but denied the request 

for supplemental relief, ruling that neither the original judgment 

nor the order fixing the bond on appeal provided for post-judgment 

relief other than possession and $900 per month during the appeal. 

The plaintiffs appeal the district court's refusal to grant their 

request for a broader post-judgment award . 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2045 Document: 01019678083 Date Filed: 01/17/1989 Page: 2 
Proper analysis of the scope of relief available to a prevailing party must begin with a review of. the ·judgment entered by 

the district court. In this case, the court entered judgment for 

the recovery of property based on the jury's finding that the 

defendant had materially breached the lease agreement between itself and the plaintiffs. The court's judgment provided for no 

relief i n the form of interest, damages, or continuing rent. 

Thus, beginning at the time of judgment and continuing until the 

district court entered the order requiring the supersedeas bond, 

the plaintiffs were due nothing more than recovery of the property. Not even the defendant's filing of appeal entitled the 

plaintiffs to more. 

A district court or .court of appeals may order a stay of the 

execution of a judgment pending appeal for any reason the court 

considers proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62; Fed. R. App. P. 8. 

When the order requires a bond pending appeal, it may not only 

expand the liabilities of the losing party beyond the terms of the 

initial judgment but also limit the liability of a surety to the 

bond. But if the bond is inadequate to cover the liability established by the original judgment, the judgment obligations of the 

losing party remain intact. In this case, there is no claim 

against the surety. The only claim the plaintiffs have made is 

that somehow they are entitled to relief broader than possession 

of their property and the rental payments imposed under the bond. 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2045 Document: 01019678083 Date Filed: 01/17/1989 Page: 3 
The district court's Order on the Motion to Vacate Stay and 

for Supplemental Relief makes clear that the court denied supplemental relief because there was no basis for recovery of anything but the property (under the original judgment) and payment 

of $900 per month (under the supersedeas bond). If the plaintiffs 

thought the terms of the bond were inadequate, they had a duty to 

ask the district court to condition the stay on an obligation 

greater than the payment of the rent called for in the lease. We 

wish to make clear, however, that a decision to resist an appeal 

in order to vindicate the district court's judgment can never be 

allowed to expose the prevailing party, as an unwilling participant in that process, to a reduced judgment because of uncertainty 

about the scope of the bond.* To suggest that the plaintiffs must 

either persuade the court to set a bond equivalent to their rights 

of recovery or forfeit a portion of their judgment at their peril 

would deprive the plaintiffs ·of their right to recover simply 

because no bond is available to preserve the entire judgment. 

Such a result would be arbitrary and irrational. Therefore, while 

the trial court correctly denied supplemental relief, it was 

authorized to do so not because the plaintiffs waived their judgmental rights by failing to object to the amount of the bond but 

because no judgment of the court, whether origi nal, a condition of 

* Of course, if the prevailing party is relying exclusively on 

the solvency of the surety (as opposed to the solvency of the 

appealing losing party), it must persuade the district court or 

the Court of Appeals as a condition of staying the appeal to make 

the surety's obligation broad enough to cover the award contained 

in the original judgment plus such post-judgment damages as can be 

anticipated. 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2045 Document: 01019678083 Date Filed: 01/17/1989 Page: 4 
stay, or a condition of bond, gave rights in excess of the relief 

already granted in this case. Bond is a supplemental judgment 

granted as a · nonconsensual condition of a stay of execution pending appeal. It is not a superseding judgment~ It may expand the 

prevailing party's rights and add additional obligees, but it does 

not reduce the judgment obligation of the losing party below. 

There is no authority in the Federal Rules or elsewhere for forcing an unwilling appellee to accept less than its full judgment if 

and when it finally prevails on appeal (although it must bear the 

risk of the appellant's insolvency if it does not persuade the 

trial court to require adequate security in the form of a bond or 

otherwise). 

In this case, plaintiff sought more than was contained in 

either the original judgment or the terms of the bond. There is 

no basis for such recovery in the judgment, the bond, the statutes, or otherwise. The refusal of the trial court to give additional relief is therefore AFFIRMED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-2045 Document: 01019678083 Date Filed: 01/17/1989 Page: 5