Opinion ID: 1231705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of Using Homestead Property as Security for Supersedeas Bond.

Text: The bank contends this appeal is moot because it can collect the unchallenged personal judgment under the terms of the bond, reaching the homestead property in this manner. This argument is based on the bank's supposition that the defendants' failure to appeal the personal judgment operated as an affirmance of that judgment, thereby making the bond available to satisfy it. We agree with the court of appeals that this argument has no merit. The weakness in the bank's argument is revealed by an examination of two provisions of the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 6.7(1) requires as a condition of [a supersedeas] bond ... that appellant will satisfy and perform the judgment if affirmed.  Iowa R.App. P. 6.7(1) (emphasis added). Rule 6.9 provides in pertinent part: If an appellate court affirms the judgment appealed from, it may, on motion of appellee, render judgment against appellant and the sureties on the appeal bond for the amount of the judgment, with damages and costs. Iowa R.App. P. 6.9 (emphasis added). It is apparent from the express language of these rules that a supersedeas bond guarantees payment of and is available to satisfy only a judgment that is appealed from and affirmed. See generally Edge v. Harsha, 334 N.W.2d 741, 742 (Iowa 1983) (A supersedeas bond is a method of keeping creditors at bay to maintain the status quo until an appeal is decided.). The bank claims the Michels' failure to assign error on the personal liability [issue] requires that the trial court's ruling on [this issue] be affirmed, citing our decision in Rector v. Alcorn, 241 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 1976). We disagree. In fact, our discussion in the Rector case supports our rejection of the bank's argument. In Rector, this court quoted the well-established rule that `[a] proposition neither assigned nor argued presents no question and need not be considered by us on review.' 241 N.W.2d at 200 (citation omitted). We said this rule applies in appeals of equity actions as well as in appeals of actions tried at law. Id. Given this rule, it cannot fairly be said that an appellate court affirms a ruling that has not even been assigned as error or considered by the court on appeal. Such a ruling is neither appealed from nor affirmed within the contemplation of our rules of appellate procedure. For this reason, the personal judgment entered against the Michels by the trial court was not secured by the supersedeas bond they filed. That bond only secured the judgment appealed from, which was the Michels' challenge to the judgment foreclosing the bank's mortgage. Therefore, the bank cannot reach the Michels' homestead by recovering on the bond unless and only to the extent the district court's decision granting foreclosure is affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is not moot.