Opinion ID: 2514008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Satisfaction of the original judgment

Text: We must first resolve whether Wheeler Springs' payment of the judgment constituted acquiescence in it, thus rendering the proceedings in this case moot. [3] We have held that a party who accepts the benefits of a judgment waives the right to appeal, because a party may not follow two legally inconsistent courses of action. [4] However, we have yet to decide whether payment of a judgment automatically renders an appeal moot. Some jurisdictions hold that a judgment debtor does not waive the right to appeal or render the controversy moot by payment or satisfaction of the judgment under coercion, unless the judgment creditor demonstrates that the payment or satisfaction was intended to compromise or settle the matter. [5] In line with this view, the Supreme Court of Colorado notes the inherent unfairness in imposing a waiver of appeal upon a party who has paid a judgment to avoid a distress sale upon execution by the judgment creditor. [6] Accordingly, jurisdictions not precluding appeal after coercive satisfaction of a judgment have stated that a judgment debtor's payment without attempting to stay execution pending appeal or to post a supersedeas bond does not amount to voluntary satisfaction of a judgment or render the controversy moot. [7] Indeed, as the Supreme Court of Kansas has noted, the filing of a supersedeas bond or seeking a stay of execution pending appeal is permissive. [8] We agree with the jurisdictions that do not preclude the right to appeal after coercive satisfaction of a judgment. Courts are divided regarding what constitutes payment under coercion; some hold that there must be actual threatened execution of the judgment, [9] while others hold that the payment of a judgment, even before actual threat of execution thereon, is sufficient. [10] Although we recognize that Wheeler Springs did not satisfy the judgment until a garnishment actually coerced payment, we are of the view that actual or potential threat of garnishment or execution is sufficient coercion to avoid a mootness challenge based upon payment of the judgment. Thus, we hold that payment of a judgment only waives the right to appeal or renders the matter moot when the payment is intended to compromise or settle the matter. Accordingly, the failure to file a supersedeas bond or seek a stay of execution of a judgment does not amount to acquiescence in the judgment. Here, after Wheeler Springs timely filed its appeal, the Tenants garnished Wheeler Springs' accounts to enforce payment of the judgment. To stop the garnishments, which could adversely affect its ability to secure credit, Wheeler Springs paid the outstanding balance owed on the judgment. Thus, Wheeler Springs' payment of the judgment was not intended to compromise or settle the matter; rather, the record indicates that the Tenants' garnishment of Wheeler Springs' accounts coerced payment. In light of our holding above, we conclude that Wheeler Springs did not waive its rights to prosecute the original appeal when it paid the judgment. Accordingly, the issues on remand and in this appeal are not moot.