Opinion ID: 2069410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judgment in Excess of the Penal Sum of the Bond

Text: Old Republic argues that even if judgment against it was proper, the court erred in entering judgment in the Spinner case in an amount that exceeded the amount of the bond. Appellee, the Estate of Felicia Spinner, agrees with Old Republic that the amount of the judgment against the surety company may not exceed the amount of the penal sum of the bond of $1,000. The law is established that the liability of a surety cannot be extended beyond the terms of the surety contract. See Miller v. Stewart, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 680, 702-03, 6 L.Ed. 189 (1824) (Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine, that the liability of a surety is not to be extended, by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent, and in the manner, and under the circumstances, pointed out in his obligation, he is bound, and no farther.); see also Bevard v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 132 A.2d 157, 159 (D.C.1957) (noting that [a] surety's obligation must be measured by the condition stated in the bond, . . . [and] such condition cannot be construed to go further than its terms and give rights to others not mentioned either expressly or by intendment.) In the Spinner case, although the face of the bond limited Old Republic's liability to $1,000, the court entered judgment on May 13, 1996, against the surety in the amount of $15,271.35. After Old Republic filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 1996, challenging the court's May 13, 1996 judgment in excess of the bond amount, the Probate Division judge filed a subsequent order on June 25, 1996, sua sponte amending its earlier order to reduce the judgment against Old Republic to the face amount of the bond, $1,000. However, the trial court was without jurisdiction to amend its May 13, 1996 judgment at the time it did so because Old Republic had previously filed its notice of appeal from that judgment. See Stebbins v. Stebbins, 673 A.2d 184, 190 (D.C.1996) (It is clear, for example, that `a party may seek disposition in the trial court of other matters which do not result in revocation or alteration of the judgment on appeal.') (quoting Padgett v. Padgett, 478 A.2d 1098, 1100 (D.C.1984) (per curiam) (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to re-enter its amended order limiting the amount of the judgment against Old Republic in the Spinner case to $1,000. The judgment in case No. 96-PR-838 is affirmed, and the judgment in case No. 96-PR-837 is affirmed in part and remanded for further action comporting with this opinion. So ordered.