24.5.346 STAY OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [11/05/10] 2010 MTWCC 29 A third-party respondent’s offer to provide his Beacon Score or credit report for the Court’s review, together with contentions that he owns mortgage-free real estate of greater value than the judgment; that his bear park is licensed by the state and he can be sanctioned or have his licensed revoked if he fails to pay a debt to the state; and that the county attorney could prosecute him to enforce payment of a debt owed to the state did not meet the requirement that to secure a stay of execution he must obtain the court’s approval of a supersedeas bond.  The Court was not satisfied that adequate security existed for payment of the judgment and therefore denied third-party respondent’s request to waive the supersedeas bond.

Oksendahl v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/31/07] 2007 MTWCC 35 Where the insurer provided the Court with a copy of its most recent Annual Statement as authenticated by the Montana State Auditor and Commissioner of Insurance, and the statement reflects a substantial positive balance, the Court was satisfied that adequate security existed for payment of the judgment. The Court waived the requirement that the insurer post a supersedeas bond.
Evans v. Liberty [07/20/07] 2007 MTWCC 32 Where the parties do not stipulate that a bond is not required, Respondent must show to the satisfaction of the Court that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment in order to waive the bond requirement. Respondent provided the Court with an authenticated copy of its annual statement reflecting a positive balance in excess of $200,000,000. The Court is thereby satisfied that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment and the bond requirement is therefore waived.
Michalak v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [04/24/207] 2007 MTWCC 14B Pursuant to ARM 24.5.346, the Court may stay a judgment and waive the bond requirement. When considering a stay of judgment, the interests of the respective parties must be balanced. Where Petitioner has made no showing that he can repay Respondent in the event the Court’s judgment is reversed, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s right to benefits does not outweigh Respondent’s right to appeal.
Sturchio v. Liberty [03/15/07] 2007 MTWCC 12 ARM 24.5.346 explains that, except as provided within the rule, the procedure to be followed is that set out in Mont. R. App. P. 7(a)-(b). Pursuant to Mont. R. App. P. 7(b), upon service of a notice of appeal, “if the appellant desires a stay of execution, the appellant must, unless the requirement is waived by the opposing party, present to the district court and secure its approval of a supersedeas bond . . . .” In the case at hand, Petitioner has not waived the requirement of the bond, and since Respondent has not posted a supersedeas bond, the Court denies its motion for stay of execution of judgment.
Sturchio v. Liberty [03/15/07] 2007 MTWCC 12 In a case in which the parties have not stipulated that no bond is required, in order to waive the bond requirement under ARM 24.5.346, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment. Only then may the Court waive the bond requirement. In the present case, Respondent has provided no proof that adequate security exists and therefore the Court is not satisfied and Respondent’s request to waive the supersedeas bond is denied.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical Heating [1/23/01] 2001 MTWCC 3 Supersedeas bond may be waived only where the opposing party consents or the appealing party provides satisfactory evidence that adequate security exists to pay the judgment.