Opinion ID: 1894470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: amount of security

Text: The final issue that we must discuss, therefore, is whether or not the amount of security required by the trial court as security pending appeal was sufficient. Pa.R.A.P. 1733(b) sets forth the requirements for a supersedeas in a mortgage foreclosure action as follows: (b) Tangible property. When the order determines the disposition of the property in controversy as in real actions, replevin, and actions to foreclose mortgages or when such property is in the custody of the sheriff, or when the proceeds of such property or appropriate security for its value is in the possession, custody or control of the court, the amount of the additional security shall be fixed by agreement of the parties, or by the court, at such sums only as will secure any damages for the use and detention of the property, interest, the costs of the matter and costs on appeal. Insilco contends that the requirement that the Rayburns obtain a fire insurance policy in the amount of 120% of the amount claimed by Insilco to be due to it is inadequate because: 1) the policy does not provide security for the costs of the proceeding; 2) the policy does not provide security for the Rayburns' detention of the property during the appeal; and 3) the policy has questionable validity when the Rayburns claim to have no insurable interest. At the hearing on the petitions for stays, Insilco presented no evidence concerning the estimated costs of the appeal nor an estimate as to the damages which would be necessary for detention of the property should it prevail on appeal. Furthermore, while the amount of the mortgage foreclosure was stated to be $26,225.92, Whipkey, the present legal owner of the real estate, testified that the value of the property was $75,000. Insilco presented no evidence to the contrary. Thus, on the facts before the trial court, the property itself secured nearly three times the amount claimed by Insilco. Since no evidence was presented to show that costs and damages might exceed the value of the property, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a separate bond as security for costs and damages. Furthermore, inasmuch as Rule 1733(b) authorizes the court to order security only for damages for the use and detention of the property, interest, the costs of the matter and costs on appeal, and inasmuch as Insilco failed to establish any value as to the items for which the court could order security, even if the insurance policy obtained by the Rayburns is unenforceable because the Rayburns do not have an insurable interest, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Rayburns' stay especially in light of the Rayburns' in forma pauperis status. The appeal at No. 402 Pittsburgh 1987 is quashed. The order appealed at No. 797 Pittsburgh 1987 granting a stay of execution pending appeal and a stay of execution pending further hearing is affirmed.