Case Name: Frank Brantley DICE, Appellant, v. James W. CAMERON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jessie M. Dice, Kimberlee M. Dice and Lisa K. Dice, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-01-04
Citations: 424 So. 2d 173
Docket Number: No. 82-844
Parties: Frank Brantley DICE, Appellant, v. James W. CAMERON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jessie M. Dice, Kimberlee M. Dice and Lisa K. Dice, Appellees.
Judges: Before DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 173–175

Head Matter:
Frank Brantley DICE, Appellant, v. James W. CAMERON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jessie M. Dice, Kimberlee M. Dice and Lisa K. Dice, Appellees.
No. 82-844.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 4, 1983.
James A. Baccus, Miami, for appellant.
Wiener & Walton, Coral Gables, Roger H. Edwards, South Miami, and Herbert A. Warren, Miami, for appellees.
Before DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
FERGUSON, Judge.
Where one of the beneficiaries under a will took an appeal from an order of the court approving the Personal Representative's recommended distribution of the estate, it was not error to require the posting of a supersedeas bond equal to the amount in controversy plus 15%. Fla.R.App.P. 9.310.
The estate has a value of over $300,-000. Appellant's share under the proposed distribution is $33,692.19. He claims by the appeal that he has been short-changed $39,- 784.61 — the amount in controversy. Although we agree with appellant that the order approving the proposed distribution is not an "order solely for payment of money" which would call into play the mandatory provision contained in section (b) of the rule, but is an order appealed from which calls into play the discretionary section (a), appellant has failed to make a clear showing that the court abused its discretion in requiring a bond. See Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, 234 So.2d 645 (Fla.1970).
The fact that the contested funds are in custody of a stakeholder does not require a different result. Cf. Dixon v. Dixon, 184 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) [appealing party in a case involving distribution of insurance proceeds which had been paid into court registry could stay judgment upon posting of a supersedeas bond]. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to insure payment of the full amount of the order including costs, interests, fees, damages for delay and use, if the review is dismissed or order affirmed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(c)(2). In this case the assets of the estate, consisting entirely of cash, are in the custody of a personal representative, who, because not required by the will, is not bonded — a fact which the trial court might have considered in requiring a good and sufficient bond.
Affirmed.
. Rule 9.310. STAY PENDING REVIEW
(a) Application. Except as provided by general law and in section (b) of this rule, a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify or deny such relief. A stay pending review may be conditioned upon the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or both.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Money Judgments. When the order is solely for the payment of money, a stay pending review is automatic, without the necessity of motion or order, on posting of a good and sufficient bond equal to the amount ordered to be paid, plus 15% thereof. If the liability of a party is less than the entire amount ordered to be paid, the bond required for that party shall be equal to the amount of such liability, plus 15%. Multiple parties having common liability may file a bond in the amount of the common liability plus 15%.