Opinion ID: 74465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bond

Text: 10 Venalum also argues that the court was without authority to require Venalum to post a bond to gain the release of the Mexico cargo. While the bond imposed on Venus Lines falls squarely within Rule 62(d), we agree that the district court erred in analyzing the bond required of Venalum as a “supersedeas bond” under that rule. By its plain language, Rule 62(d) only applies to appeal bonds, not to a release bond used as a substitute for attached property. Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s decision on other grounds. See Watkins v. Bowden, 105 F.3d 1344, 1354 n.17 (11th Cir. 1997) (appellate court may affirm district court on any ground, even one not considered). The court’s action was authorized by Rule (E)(5)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, which provides in pertinent part that “whenever process of maritime attachment and garnishment . . . is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security, to be approved by the court or clerk.” Arguably, this provision is inapplicable because it only applies by its terms where “process of maritime attachment and garnishment . . . is issued.” In this case, the district court vacated, rather than issued, the attachment. Nevertheless, we conclude that Rule (E)(5)(a) applies because the district court stayed its vacation of the writ of attachment, 11 meaning that the “process of maritime attachment and garnishment . . . issued” by the magistrate judge remained in effect. Venalum argues the district court exceeded its authority under Rule E(5) by compelling Venalum to post bond, relying on Seguros Banvanez, S.A. v. S/S Oliver Drescher, 761 F.2d 855, (2d Cir. 1985), which is factually inapposite. In Seguros, the party that had to furnish the bond was not the shipowner, but the charterer. The Seguros court was concerned about making the charterer pay security when it did not get the quid pro quo of the release of the ship: [a] shipowner is not compelled to furnish a bond to the person who has arrested its ship. Its quid pro quo for voluntarily furnishing security is the release of its ship. Depriving [the charterer] of its property by compelling it to furnish a bond to [the owner] without any similar quid pro quo, without any valid prior finding as to the parties’ respective rights, and without any provision for protection of [the charterer’s] interests and expenses, smacks of a violation of due process. See Seguros, 761 F.2d at 863-64. In this case, it was not the ship, but the cargo that was attached. When Venalum posted bond, it got its quid pro quo -- the release of the Mexico cargo. Because the terms of Rule E(5)(a) were met, the district court was authorized to require Venalum to post bond to gain the release of the Mexico cargo pending appeal. III. Conclusion Appeal no. 98-6223: We AFFIRM the district court’s orders granting a stay and requiring Venalum to post a bond for release of the Mexico cargo. 12 Appeal no. 98-6562: We REVERSE the district court’s order vacating the writ of foreign attachment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 13