LUTHER CAMPBELL AND LUKE RECORDS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER JONES, PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS M.C. SHY D., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's decision granting a stay of execution of a money judgment without requiring a supersedeas bond. The court held that while an appellant need not post a bond to perfect an appeal, a stay of execution pending appeal can only be obtained by posting the required supersedeas bond.
A trial court may not grant a stay of execution of a money judgment pending appeal without the posting of a supersedeas bond as required by Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b). While an appellant need not post a bond to perfect an appeal, any stay of execution must be conditioned upon posting the required supersedeas bond.
[1] A trial court errs in granting a stay of execution of a money judgment pending appeal without requiring the posting of a supersedeas bond.
[2] Under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1), a stay of execution of a money judgment pending appeal can only be obtained by posting a bond in the amount set fo…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if an appellant seeks to stay execution of judgment pending the appeal, he may obtain a stay 'only by the posting of the bond in the amount set forth in Rule 9.310(b).'”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for posting a supersedeas bond to obtain a stay of execution pending appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuther Campbell received a money judgment against him in excess of $1.5 million. Campbell filed a notice of appeal and then moved in the trial court t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Execution Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Luther Campbell filed a Notice of Appeal from a money judgment in excess of $1.5 million; thereafter, he filed a motion in the trial court to stay execution of that judgment pending appeal. Relying on Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550(b), Campbell argued that he was not able to procure a supersedeas bond, and that unless execution was stayed pending appeal, appellants’ business would be “dismembered” through execution. The trial court granted a stay that was not conditioned upon the posting of any bond; the stay was to be in effect for three months. In so doing, the trial court erred.
Under Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(1), an appellant is not required to post a supersede-as bond in order to perfect an appeal from a money judgment. Palm Beach Heights Dev. & Sales Corp. v. Decillis, 385 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, if an appellant seeks to stay execution of judgment pending the appeal, he may obtain a stay “only by the posting of the bond in the amount set forth in Rule 9.310(b).” Id. See also First Dev. Co. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (appellant entitled to stay of judgment for attorney’s fees and costs only by posting good and sufficient bond as required by Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(1)). Cf. Avirgan v. Hull, 125 F.R.D. 185 (S.D.Fla.1989) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) provides that court can issue stay pending appeal only when judgment debtor posts super-sedeas bond; claim that posting bond would render defendant insolvent not sufficient ground for granting stay without bond), aff'd, 932 F. 2d 1572 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1048,112 S.Ct. 913,116 L.Ed.2d 813 (1992).1
Motion granted; stay vacated.
. We note that Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550(b) has been described as a vehicle for protecting a judgment debtor “briefly while he perfects his appeal and obtains supersedeas." Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A., 338 So. 2d 888, 889 . See also Chapman v. Rose, 295 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (temporary stay of execution on money judgment would have been appropriate under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550(b) for four days while appeal filed and supersedeas obtained). In this case, appellant sought relief under rule 1.550 after filing the notice of appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mellon United Nat'l Bank v. Cochran, 776 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…as suspending execution on equitable grounds. We reverse. If a defendant seeks to stay execution of judgment pending the appeal, “he may obtain a stay ‘only by the posting of the bond in the amount set forth in Rule 9.310(b).’ ” Campbell v. Jones, 648 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quoting from Palm Beach Heights Dev. & Sales Corp. v. Decillis, 385 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)), see Finst Dev. Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (appellant entitled to stay of judgment for att…
-
Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…,740.73 . This sum represented $7,740.73 found to have been owing under the contract plus accrued interest of $2,637.82, plus costs of $1,023.50. . Mr. Grant argues that the order entered on August 14, 1995, was unlawful, citing Campbell v. Jones, 648 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), among other cases. But see Waller v. DSA Group, Inc., 606 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The viability of the main appeal does not, however, turn on the validity of the trial court’s order of August 14, 1995, a question we do no…
-
Charter Schs. USA, Inc. v. John DOE NO. 93, 152 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ndered), nothing in the rules precludes a party from moving, either orally or in writing, in the court below for a stay of execution for a short time so that an order denying a motion for new trial/rehearing may be “rendered.” See Campbell v. Jones, 648 So. 2d 208, 209 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“We note that Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.550(b) has been described as a vehicle for protecting a judgment debtor ‘briefly while he perfects his appeal and obtains supersedeas. ’ Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A., 338…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Montford, 385 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Chapman v. Rose, 295 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Barnett v. Barnett Bank OF Jacksonville, N.A., 338 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Oil v. Avecor, Inc., 502 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1992)
- Inslaw, Inc. v. United States, 502 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1992)