ALL LEASE CO., INC. v. Peters
Cited by
- Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 641 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- McCallum v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 597 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 289 Minn. 544 not in our corpus
- 185 N.W.2d 281 not in our corpus
Opinion text
SPECIAL TERM OPINION WOZNIAK, Chief Judge. PACTS Petitioners have separately appealed a money judgment, briefing is complete on that appeal, and the matter has been submitted for decision. By order on April 15 the trial court directed petitioners to post a supersedeas bond as a condition of continu-⅛ their appeal. Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition. DECISION A supersedeas bond is not required to perfect an appeal. The trial courts may not compel a party “to file a supersedeas bond as a condition to his right to an appellate review of the merits of the court’s decision.” Tourville v. Tourville, 289 Minn. 544, 545 , 185 N.W.2d 281, 282 (1971). The supreme court in Tourville restated “the elementary principle of appellate procedure, with which all would agree, that a review on the merits is not precluded by appellant’s decision not to seek a stay of proceedings pending appeal by exercising his right not to file a supersedeas bond.” Id. (emphasis added). In the absence of a bond, respondents may enforce the money judgment. The trial court exceeded its authority by requiring petitioners to post a supersedeas bond, and its order is valid only to the extent it establishes the amount of a bond to be posted ¾/the petitioners choose to post a bond and obtain a stay of enforcement. Writ of prohibition issued.