SafePoint Insurance Company v. Riley Ellison, Jr.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 18, 2024
• Docket: 3D2024-1126
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1126 Lower Tribunal No. 18-12573-CA-01 ________________

SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Riley Ellison, Jr., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellant.

The Nation Law Firm, and Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard (Longwood); Jorge C. Borron, PLLC, and Jorge C. Borron and Brett Caballero, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. ON MOTION FOR REVIEW

LINDSEY, J.

Appellant SafePoint Insurance Company, pursuant to Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.310(f), seeks review of the trial court’s order directing

SafePoint to provide discovery in aid of execution, namely, a completed Fact

Information Sheet under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.977. Because

SafePoint has posted a good and sufficient supersedeas bond, the trial

court’s order violates the automatic stay imposed under Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1) (“If the order is a judgment solely for the

payment of money, a party may obtain an automatic stay of execution

pending review, without the necessity of a motion or order, by posting a good

and sufficient bond equal to the principal amount of the judgment plus twice

the statutory rate of interest on judgments on the total amount on which the

party has an obligation to pay interest.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the order under review. See QBE Ins. Corp.

v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Ass’n, Inc., 94 So. 3d 541, 555 (Fla. 2012)

(“Under Florida law, the posting of a ‘good and sufficient bond’ as provided

in rule 9.310(b) results in an automatic stay pending appeal of an adverse

money judgment. The trial court has no discretion to change this amount or

deny a stay when the bond requirements have been met.” (citations

2 omitted)); Pneumo Abex LLC v. Mallia, 923 So. 2d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA

2006) (“The supersedeas bond stays all proceedings in relation to the

judgment below.”); Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 385 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1980); see also Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 664 F.2d 260, 263 (11th Cir.

1981) (“[D]iscovery is a ‘proceeding in relation to a judgment’ under Florida

law, and thus ordinarily would come within the stay.” (citations omitted)).

Reversed.