Makowski v. Makowski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Makowski v. Makowski

578 So. 2d 737, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1490, 1991 WL 22575

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1991

DocketNos. 90-2337, 90-2320

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 737 (Makowski v. Makowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Makowski v. Makowski, 578 So. 2d 737, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1490, 1991 WL 22575 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Frank Makowski filed notices of appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and a judgment for attorney’s and guardian ad litem fees. The trial court stayed the judgments on review without conditioning the stays upon posting of a bond. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(a). The judgments, inter alia, awarded appellee Julia Makowski $20,000 as part of an equitable distribution of marital assets and granted an attorney’s fee and guardian ad litem fees totalling $48,494. “The purpose of a supersedeas 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 the motion for bond constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Pabian. We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellee’s motion for supersedeas bond and remand for determination of a good and sufficient bond.

Reversed and remanded.

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

ON MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Frank Makowski filed notices of appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and a judgment for attorney’s and guardian ad litem fees. The trial court stayed the judgments on review without conditioning the stays upon posting of a bond. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(a). The judgments, inter alia, awarded appellee Julia Makowski $20,000 as part of an equitable distribution of marital assets and granted an attorney’s fee and guardian ad litem fees totalling $48,494. “The purpose of a supersedeas 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 the motion for bond constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Pabian. We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellee’s motion for supersedeas bond and remand for determination of a good and sufficient bond.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 737, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1490, 1991 WL 22575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makowski-v-makowski-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack