Opinion ID: 2112763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: bond cost

Text: Remaining for consideration in this case is the Barelmanns' contention that the district court erred in taxing against them as a cost of suit the premium the bank paid for the replevin bond it posted, as required by § 25-1098, when the replevied property was delivered to it by the sheriff. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-10,105 (Reissue 1989) provides: In all cases when the property has been delivered to the plaintiff, where the jury shall find for the plaintiff, on an issue joined, or on inquiry of damages upon a judgment by default, they shall assess adequate damages to the plaintiff for the illegal detention of the property; for which with costs of suit, the court shall render judgment for plaintiff. The Barelmanns argue first that § 25-10,105 does not apply because there was no finding they illegally detained the property in question and because there was neither a jury finding nor default judgment against them. Obviously, the first claim is without merit, for the replevin judgment in favor of the bank is a finding that the Barelmanns illegally detained the subject property. As to whether a successful plaintiff may in all circumstances recover the costs of suit, the statute is admittedly less than artfully drawn. But we need not at this time decide whether its language compels the absurd result the Barelmanns espouse, for the bank is entitled to recovery of its costs in this action without reference to § 25-10,105. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1708 (Reissue 1989) provides: Where it is not otherwise provided by this and other statutes, costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor, in actions for the recovery of ... specific real or personal property. Therefore, the only real issue raised by the Barelmanns' assignment of error is whether, as the bond was posted for their protection, the cost of its purchase may be taxed against them. Although this is a question of first impression for us, other jurisdictions have found that the cost of a replevin bond is correctly taxed to an unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff in Crowe v. Peaslee-Gaulbert Co., 37 F.2d 216 (1st Cir.1930), filed a replevin action. Massachusetts law required such a plaintiff to post a bond in an amount double the value of the goods. In upholding the assessment of the bond premium as a taxable cost to the unsuccessful defendant, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stated: Under modern conditions and practice, bonds by surety companies have come to be the accepted and approved custom where bonds are required; and where the giving of the bond is compulsory, whether by order of court or by statute, the rule as to costs, in reason and authority, requires that premiums on such bonds are properly included in a bill of costs of the successful party. Id. at 218. The replevin plaintiff in John Deere Co. v. Cerone Equip. Co., 33 A.D.2d 257, 307 N.Y.S.2d 129 (1970), moved for summary judgment and included in the proposed bill of costs the bond premium. The trial court granted the summary judgment but rejected as a taxable cost the bond premium. The appellate court modified the trial court's judgment so as to allow the plaintiff to recover the bond premium as a taxable cost of the action. In doing so, the appellate court noted that not only was the plaintiff required to provide the bond in order to gain possession, but also that the defendant interposed no meritorious defense. We conclude that a successful plaintiff in replevin is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of the bond required of it by § 25-1098.