Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-222-RET-SCR.
April 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an Interpleader Action provoked by American General Life Insurance Company, Inc. against Evelyn Jackson Wilkes and Queen Ester Wilkes Hinkle to determine who is the beneficiary on two life insurance policies issued to decedent, John Henry Wilkes. Defendant-in-Interpleader, Evelyn Jackson Wilkes, is the wife of the decedent and Defendant-in-Interpleader, Queen Ester Wilkes Hinkle, is his daughter.
On March 31, 2008, this Court entered an order affirming the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Wilkes. Thereafter, Defendant Hinkle filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment in favor of Defendant Wilkes and a Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment. In the motion for stay, defendant Hinkle not only asks that the judgment be stayed pending appeal, but also that the Court dispense with the requirement that she post a supersedeas bond. The motion for stay is opposed by defendant Wilkes, who has also filed a Motion for Order to Release Funds, asking that the funds on deposit in the registry of the court be released to her pursuant to the summary judgment granted in her favor.
The motion for stay without the necessity of filing a supersedeas bond as required by Article 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be denied. Although defendant Hinkle cites the Court to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules, the language which she cites as authority for the requested stay is not found in that article (or in any other provisions of Rule 62).
The Court also notes that Rule 62(b) applies to motions for stay pending disposition of a Motion for New Trial or to alter or amend a judgment, and has no application to a motion for stay pending appeal. Rule 62(d) provides for stay pending appeal, but the rule does not contain any provisions authorizing a court to waive the bond requirement.
Further, even if the Court were authorized to waive the bond requirement, Hinkle has failed to provide the Court with a reason why she would be entitled to such relief. She does not allege that she is unable to afford the cost of such a bond, or that the bond requirement imposes any other particular hardship upon her. As defendant Wilkes properly points out, Hinkle also fails to state a reasonable basis to believe that the judgment which she is appealing is wrong or improper.
Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal is DENIED.
The Court will enter a separate order granting the Motion for Order to Release Funds filed by defendant Wilkes.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.