Opinion ID: 1095108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: is the amount of the appellant's supersedeas bond sufficient or excessive?

Text: The procedure by which an unsuccessful litigant seeks a stay of the execution of a judgment appealed from is a supersedeas. The granting of a supersedeas commands the staying of a proceeding at law and prohibits the enforcement of the trial court's judgment pending review. To secure such a stay of proceedings, it is necessary that the litigant secure a sufficient bond in the amount set by the trial judge. In the instant case, it is necessary that this Court look to the general purpose of the supersedeas bond, which is to effect absolute security to the party affected by the appeal. In Re Watkins' Estate, 114 Vt. 109, 41 A.2d 180 (1944); Ricci v. Bove's Estate, 116 Vt. 335, 75 A.2d 682 (1950). The amount of a supersedeas bond should be sufficient to protect the appellee in his judgment; therefore, it should insure the payment of the judgment and interest, and any waste that could occur pending the appeal. If the appeal is affirmed, the appellee should be able to satisfy the payment of the judgment in full, together with costs, interest, and the damages for delay. The bond is the typical means of giving the appellee security. However, the Court may approve security in the form of cash or property. The judgment may be secured in other ways such as the Court's taking possession of personal property or otherwise providing for a method to insure payment of the appellee's judgment. In this state, the controlling guideline in determination of the form, amount, and procedure for supersedeas bonds is Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 8, effective January 1, 1988, and governing all proceedings in appeals and other proceedings subsequently brought such as this motion. [1] It should also be noted regarding a stay of proceeding that under M.R.C.P. 62 that there is an automatic stay of a trial court judgment until the expiration of ten (10) days after its entry or the disposition of a motion for a new trial, whichever last occurs. Rule 8(a) applies to a money judgment, while Rule 8(b) applies to other than money judgments. This Rule follows the abrogated statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-31 (Supp. 1986) (See Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 [Miss. 1975]), and Ala.R.App.P. 8(a), as is noted in the Comment to the Rule. Regarding money judgments, the trial court clerk may approve a supersedeas bond in the amount of 125% of the judgment under Rule 8(a). However, for stays other than money judgments, the application for a stay must ordinarily be sought in the first instance from the trial judge. Such is the factual situation in the instant case. As noted earlier, prior to the effective date of the new Supreme Court Rules, the chancellor in the instant case set the figure required for the supersedeas bond at $125,000. His guide for setting the bond figure was Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-31 (Supp. 1988), which was applicable prior to January 1, 1988. On appeal from any interlocutory decree, where the chancellor shall allow a supersedeas, and on appeal from a final decree of the chancery court, or the final judgment of a circuit court where the appellant shall desire a supersedeas, bond shall be given by the appellant, payable to the opposite party, with two (2) or more sufficient resident sureties, or one or more guaranty or surety companies authorized to do business in this state in a penalty of one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the amount of the decree or judgment appealed from, or one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the amount of the value of the property or other matter in controversy, to be determined by the officer granting the appeal, conditioned that the appellant will satisfy the judgment or decree complained of, and also such final judgment as may be made in the cause, and a supersedeas shall not issue until such bond shall have been given. Provided, however, on application of the appealing party, the court rendering the judgment from which the appeal is taken may, after notice and hearing and for good cause shown, set the supersedeas bond in an amount less than the one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) stated hereinabove. The ruling of the court on the application for reduction of bond shall be reviewable by the court to which the appeal is taken. A supersedeas shall not be granted in any case pending in the Supreme Court, unless the party applying for it shall give bond as above required. (Emphasis added). This provision of the Code authorizes the setting of supersedeas bond figures at one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the amount of the decree or judgment or one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the amount of the value of the property or other matter in controversy. In the case before us, the amount of the judgment was approximately $40,000 and the value of Robert Taylor's estate was approximately $300,000. Thus, the bond figure could have been set at approximately $50,000 based on the value of the judgment and $375,000 based on the value of the estate. In an effort to avoid placing what he considered to be too heavy a burden on the appellant and in the interest of being fair, the chancellor set the supersedeas bond at $125,000. The chancellor did have the discretionary right to set the bond figure at less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the value of the judgment or the property in question pursuant to § 11-51-31. At each of the three subsequent hearings concerning the supersedeas bond, the chancellor found Ms. Perkins' efforts to post the $125,000 bond to be insufficient. In attempting to reach the $125,000 figure set for the supersedeas bond, the appellant had pledged some $19,000 she would receive as part of the disbursements of chancery court judgment, some land in Warren County worth allegedly approximately $31,000, and some property in Hinds County worth allegedly approximately $89,000. On the former motion before this Court for a stay, this Court approved the amount of the supersedeas bond set by the chancellor at $125,000.00. Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 8(c) recognizes that the movant must show facts relied upon since a record is not before the Court. Munford Mississippi Supreme Court Practice, Stay Pending Appeal, (1987). On this second motion before this Court with a partial record regarding the bond proceedings and with briefs, it now appears that estate assets have been transferred to the newly appointed administrator. Assuming then that this is a fact, and assuming that the appellant Perkins has no control over the estate assets, but rather, that the assets are under the chancery court's direction with a new administrator, this Court is in a better position to evaluate the bond amount. Our case law suggests a different amount. The case of Aetna Insurance Company v. Robertson, 127 Miss. 440, 90 So. 120 (1921) controls our revaluation of the issue regarding the amount of the bond. The Aetna case represents a factual situation analogous to the instant case. In Aetna, the State Revenue Agent received a money judgment against the appellee Aetna, et al, for $8,000,000 together with an order of the trial court that some $500,000 of impounded funds be paid over to the appellee State Revenue Agent. The Aetna opinion holds: The insurance companies appealed from the decree against them for $8,000,000 without supersedeas, and applied to Justice Anderson for a supersedeas as to that portion of the decree directing the impounded funds to be forthwith paid over to the revenue agent. ... . We think it is unquestionably true that the decree in this case for $8,000,000 is a money judgment, and that no stay of its execution by supersedeas could be granted unless the provisions of the last section above were complied with by the execution of bonds in a penalty double the amount of the judgment appealed from, to wit, $8,000,000; but we are of the opinion that the requirements of this section have no application to the granting of the supersedeas staying that part of the judgment ordering the immediate paying over of the impounded funds to the revenue agent, because that part of the judgment ordering the paying over of the funds is separable from the main judgment of liability for $8,000,000, as it is a separate order with reference to the disposition of the money, or property, in the hands of the court, while the main judgment is a judgment of liability to pay, which is not stayed, except so far as it may be involved in the order to forthwith turn over the impounded money to the successful litigant. This being true, we think the granting of the supersedeas by Justice Anderson was clearly authorized by the said section 56. Code of 1906 (Section 32, Hemingway's Code). It is true that the order to turn over the impounded funds grows out of and is connected with the main money judgment but it is separable therefrom for the reason that its character is distinctly different from, and it may present questions for decision by this court independent of those presented by, the main judgment of liability. We have been unable to find any cases in point which hold contrary to the views we have expressed, and the question seems to be largely one of local law to be determined by our statutes governing appeals. The rule recognizing separable parts of a judgment, though all included in the same rendition, is a principle followed in many jurisdictions; and an appeal without supersedeas as to one part and appeal with supersedeas as to another part is allowable, if the two parts are so different as to be separable. ... . The law requiring security by bond for appeals with supersedeas rests upon the just principle that the successful litigant shall be saved harmless from loss, and secured in the fruits of his victory. This is all that should be required of the losing litigant who desires that his case be reviewed on appeal, and that the status quo be maintained until a final decision is rendered in the cause. Here we have the actual money safely impounded in the hands of the court, to be turned over or applied according to the judgment of the court when finally given. There can be no good reason or necessity for requiring by bond the forth-coming of the money at the final decision when the money is already in the hands of the court. No harm or damage can come to the successful litigant so far as this money is concerned by staying it in the safe possession of the court, because a bond has been required and furnished which amply provides for any loss in the way of interest, statutory damages, and the cost of the appeal. The money in this case remains in the hands of the court instead of being released to the losing litigant, who may later on be required to produce it to satisfy a final judgment of the court. 127 Miss. at 442, 444-7, 90 So. at 120-122. In Aetna, the Supreme Court ordered that the appellants (insurance companies) enter into a bond to cover the cost of appeal and the further sum of twenty-five per cent (25%) of the amount of their respective funds impounded, conditioned to pay damages and interest should the decree of the trial court be affirmed, and to be approved by the clerk of the chancery court. 127 Miss. at 442, 90 So. at 120. In the case of Summer v. Henn, 323 So.2d 751 (Miss. 1975), an analogous situation again was before this Court. In Summer, the trial court actually had tendered into court interpled funds. Citing the Aetna decision, the appellant Summer contended the interpled funds were actually in the hands of the court and the amount of the supersedeas appeal bond should be set in accordance with the Aetna holding. This Court recognized the Aetna rationale, but denied the appeal for failure to timely file a cost bond within the appeal time. By following the guidelines found in Aetna and Summer, supra, it is the opinion of this Court that the bond figure set by the chancery court should be lowered. The consideration of the two judgments needs to be addressed separately as they are separable. Aetna, supra .