Judgments: Enforcement: Stays of Execution

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 Where Respondent did not post a supersedeas bond nor show to the satisfaction of the Court that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment, and where Petitioner did not waive the requirement of the bond, this Court denies Respondent’s motion for stay of execution of judgment.

Sturchio v. Liberty [03/15/07] 2007 MTWCC 12 In Harrison v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2006 MTWCC 24,¶ 13, the Court stated that the decision whether to grant a stay rests within this Court’s discretion, and that Ingebretson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 1994 MTWCC 113-A, established the criteria as “[b]alancing the interests of the parties.” However, the balancing of the interests only comes into play after the statutory and regulatory requirements have been met.