Opinion ID: 890183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stay of Execution; Supersedeas Bond

Text: ¶ 45 Lastly, it is necessary to address the significance of Evans' failure to request a stay or post a supersedeas bond. The Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure do not require an appellant to seek a stay of execution. See Kennedy, ¶ 34; M.R.App. P. 7 (prior to 2007) (a party may apply for a stay); M.R.App. P. 22 (2007 to present) ([i]f the appellant desires a stay). The failure to post a supersedeas bond does not affect the right to an appeal, Allers v. Willis, 197 Mont. 499, 508, 643 P.2d 592, 597 (1982), and compliance with the judgment does not necessarily render the appeal moot, Turner, 276 Mont. at 61, 915 P.2d at 803. Nevertheless, this Court has noted on several occasions that failure to post a supersedeas bond makes the rights of the parties subject to execution, subsequent satisfaction of the judgment and possible mootness so far as appeals are concerned. Henke, 154 Mont. at 177, 461 P.2d at 451 (emphasis added); accord Niles v. Carbon County, 174 Mont. 20, 22, 568 P.2d 524, 525 (1977); Erdman v. C & C Sales, Inc., 176 Mont. 177, 183-84, 577 P.2d 55, 58 (1978); Moore v. Hardy, 230 Mont. 158, 162, 748 P.2d 477, 480 (1988). Several of the cases discussed above reflect this fact. Consequently, while a party is not required to seek a stay of execution, a party choosing not to seek such a stay runs the risk of having his appeal become moot. Kennedy, ¶ 34 (emphasis added); see also Turner, 276 Mont. at 60, 915 P.2d at 803 (A party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party's own failure to seek a stay of the judgment.). ¶ 46 With regard to the present case, the Restatement explains that while it is often possible to postpone compliance with an adverse judgmentby a bonding procedure or otherwisepending a challenge by direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, the failure to obtain or even to seek interim relief from the judgment is not a bar to subsequent restitution. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 18 cmts. a, c; see also Strong v. Laubach, 443 F.3d 1297, 1299 (10th Cir.2006) (A judgment debtor who is unable or is unwilling to post a supersedeas bond retains the right to appeal even if the judgment is executed. Should the judgment be reversed on appeal, a district court may, on motion or sua sponte, order the judgment creditor to restore the benefits obtained. (citation omitted)). One of the underlying rationales for this rule is that any payment made in response to a judgment is treated as a payment made under compulsion. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 18 cmt. c. Conversely, a payment by way of compromise and settlement, where the purpose of the agreement is to effect a final resolution between the parties irrespective of the validity or correctness of any prior decrees, is not subject to recovery in restitution unless the agreement of compromise may itself be avoided, on contract principles, for reasons such as fraudulent concealment or invalidating mistake. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 18 cmt. c.