Ex parte Spriggs Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1979 |
| Citation | 376 So.2d 1088 |
| Parties | Ex parte SPRIGGS ENTERPRISES, INC., an Alabama Corporation. In re SPRIGGS ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ala. Corp. v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, a Corp.; Lake Forest, Inc., a Corp.; and Diamondhead Corporation, a Corp. 78-793. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
E. E. Ball of Owen, Ball & Wills, Bay Minette, for petitioner.
Broox G. Holmes, A. Danner Frazer, Jr., of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, Norborne C. Stone, Jr. of Stone & Partin, Bay Minette, for Lake Forest, Inc., and Diamondhead Corp., respondents.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent trial judge to set aside an order permitting two of three co-defendants to stay execution of a $1.25 million judgment entered against them by posting a supersedeas bond totaling only 62.5% Of the total judgment. The writ is granted.
Plaintiff-petitioner was awarded $1.25 million in damages in its lawsuit against three corporate defendants. Defendants Lake Forest, Inc. and Diamondhead Corporation were permitted by the trial judge to supersede the judgment pending appeal by posting a bond in the amount of 62.5% Of the judgment. The other defendant, Gulf Oil Corporation, filed a separate appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in an amount equal to 125% Of the judgment.
The issue for our determination is whether the amount of the bond required to stay execution of a judgment solely for the payment of money rests within the trial court's discretion in view of ARAP 8. We hold that it does not.
Rule 8 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part:
(a) Stay by Supersedeas Bond. The appellant shall not be entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal (except as provided in ARCP Rule 62(e)) unless he executes bond with good and sufficient sureties, approved by the clerk of the trial court, payable to appellee (or to the clerk or register if the trial court so directs), with condition, failing the appeal, to satisfy such judgment as the appellate court may render, when the judgment is:
(1) For the payment of money only, in an amount equal to 150% Of the amount of the judgment if the judgment does not exceed $10,000.00, or 125% If the judgment exceeds $10,000.00;
The plain meaning of Rule 8(a)(1) is that one who appeals a judgment against him for money damages only Must execute a supersedeas bond in an amount equal to 125% Of the amount of the judgment when the judgment exceeds $10,000.00. The language utilized in the rule is mandatory; the trial judge is given no discretion in setting the amount of the supersedeas bond.
Defendants Lake Forest and Diamondhead argue in brief that because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis
...585 (1972) )."The purpose of requiring a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo pending the appeal. Ex parte Spriggs Enterprises, Inc. , 376 So.2d 1088 (Ala. 1979). When one appeals without posting a supersedeas bond, the appellee's right to enforce the judgment is not suspended dur......
-
Scrushy v. Tucker, 1050564.
...in the rule is mandatory; the trial judge is given no discretion in setting the amount of the supersedeas bond." Ex parte Spriggs Enters., Inc., 376 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Ala.1979). In Ware v. Timmons, case no. 1030488, in response to a motion to suspend the requirement of Rule 8(a)(1), this Co......
-
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For County of Yuma
...and costs, with no discretion available to the trial court. Taplin v. Salamone, 422 So.2d 92 (Fla.1982); Spriggs Enterprises, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 376 So.2d 1088 (Ala.1979). The federal courts, on the other hand, have fixed supersedeas bonds in accordance with the predecessor of the pres......
-
Greenberger v. Slocumb Law Firm, LLC (Ex parte Slocumb Law Firm, LLC)
...with its appeal." ‘The purpose of requiring a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo pending the appeal. Ex parte Spriggs Enterprises, Inc., 376 So. 2d 1088 (Ala. 1979). When one appeals without posting a supersedeas bond, the appellee's right to enforce the judgment is not suspende......
-
Bonds in Colorado Courts: a Primer for Practitioners
...defendant must file bond in a forcible entry and detainer ("FED") action; construing FED statute). 44. See In re Spriggs Enters., Inc., 376 So.2d 1088, (Ala. 1979) (requiring each of three defendants to post a supersedeas bond to secure judgment); Valerio v. Laughlin, 307 S.W.2d 352, 353 (T......