TIBOR HOLLO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, 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 Third District Court of Appeal vacated and remanded a trial court's orders denying a motion to strike a supersedeas bond and granting a protective order, holding that courts have the authority to examine the sufficiency of sureties on a supersedeas bond and that discovery may be necessary to determine whether each surety can satisfy the bond amount.
A trial court has the authority and duty to determine whether each surety on a supersedeas bond is fully able to satisfy the bond amount, and discovery may be necessary for the court to ascertain whether each surety can fulfill its obligation. The protective order preventing discovery into the sureties' assets was erroneous.
[1] A supersedeas bond's purpose is to protect a judgment creditor by assuring payment of the judgment if an appeal is unsuccessful.
[2] A trial court retains the authority to review the sufficiency of a supersedeas bond, even after it has been filed with a principal and two sureties.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A stay pending appeal of a judgment solely for the payment of money is automatic upon the posting of a good and sufficient bond.”
Establishes the legal framework that a bond meeting statutory requirements creates an automatic stay on judgment collection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorthern Trust Bank obtained a final judgment against Tibor Hollo and East Coast Properties, Inc. for $2,422,136.40 on eleven promissory notes. The de…
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 Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Northern Trust Bank of Florida, N.A., [Bank] challenges the trial court’s orders denying its motion to strike supersedeas bond and granting a protective order. We vacate and remand.
The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Bank in its action to collect $2,422,136.40 due and payable under eleven promissory notes. Tibor Hollo and East Coast Properties, Inc., [Debtors] filed a notice of appeal and a supersedeas bond for $3,003,440.14, with the Debtors as principals and Urana Gray and Steven Baer as sureties. Gray and Baer are employees of Debtor East Coast Properties, Inc. Doubting that the sureties possessed sufficient assets to cover the bond, the Bank served notices for deposition and subpoenas duces tecum upon Gray and Baer; however, the trial court granted the Debtors’ motion for protective order. The Bank filed a motion to strike the supersedeas bond, but the trial court denied the motion. The Bank seeks review of the trial court’s orders.
A stay pending appeal of a judgment solely for the payment of money is automatic upon the posting of a good and sufficient bond. Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(1). “A good and sufficient bond is a bond with a principal and two personal sureties or one surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida.” Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(c)(1).
The Debtors argue that once a bond with a principal and two sureties has been filed, the trial court is powerless to review its sufficiency. We do not accept their contention. The purpose of a su-persedas bond is to protect the judgment creditor by assuring payment of judgment in the event appeal should prove unsuccessful. Dice v. Cameron, 424 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Knipe v. Knipe, 290 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); see also Jerles Inv. Co. v. Wells, 130 Fla. 136, 177 So. 313 (1937).
That purpose would not be served if the sureties could not satisfy the judgment.
Accordingly, the courts of this state have held that each surety must be able to cover the full amount of the bond. Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533, 19 So. 649 (1896); see also Melvin v. West, 120 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1960). Discovery may be necessary for the court to ascertain whether each surety can fulfill its obligation under the bond.
Thus, the trial court erred in granting the protective order. It is incumbent upon the court to determine that each surety has sufficient assets within the court’s jurisdiction to satisfy the bond.
Accordingly, we vacate both the protective order and the order denying the motion to strike the supersedeas bond. We remand with directions to the trial court to determine whether each surety is fully able to satisfy the bond.
Vacated and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Makowski v. Makowski, 578 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…upersedeas bond is to insure payment of the full amount of the order ... if the review is dismissed or order affirmed.” Dice v. Cameron, 424 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Hollo v. North Trust Bank of Florida, 562 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Appellee sufficiently alleged that a bond is necessary to protect the sums awarded to her in the judgment. Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Dice, 424 So. 2d at 174. We therefore find that the denial of t…
Authorities Cited
- Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. v. King, 131 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1937)
- Nat Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1896)
- Jerles Inv. Co., Inc. v. Wells, 130 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1937)
- Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Dice v. Cameron, 424 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Al Knipe v. Knipe, 290 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Melvin v. West, 120 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)