ALL LEASE CO., INC. v. Peters

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

ALL LEASE CO., INC. v. Peters

424 N.W.2d 320, 1988 WL 58917

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJune 14, 1988

DocketC8-88-958

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 424 N.W.2d 320 (ALL LEASE CO., INC. v. Peters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ALL LEASE CO., INC. v. Peters, 424 N.W.2d 320, 1988 WL 58917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 N.W.2d 320, 1988 WL 58917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/all-lease-co-inc-v-peters-minnctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack