U.S. v. Owen

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELANIE OWEN

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Dec 26, 2000

Civil Action No. 99-2805 Section "C" (4) (E.D. La. Dec. 26, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 99-2805 Section "C" (4).

December 26, 2000.

ORDER AND REASONS

HELEN G. HERRIGAN, U.S. District Judge.

Defendant has petitioned the Court to Waive the Requirement of Posting a Supersedeas Bond to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal. After considering the record, the arguments of counsel and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is hereby GRANTED and the bond requirement is hereby WAIVED, with the following conditions as expressed below.

Under Rule 62(d), a party may stay the execution of a judgment pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Pursuant to the Local Rules, the bond must be "in the amount of the judgment plus 20% of the amount to cover interest, costs, and any award of damages for delay, unless the court directs otherwise." L.R. 62.2E. In this case, Defendant would be required to post a $23,449.13 bond. However, Defendant has submitted an affidavit stating that posting a bond in that amount would result in insolvency.

In Poplar Grove Planting Refining Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189 (5^th Cir. 1979), the Fifth Circuit noted two exceptions to the requirement that a party post a bond to stay a judgment pending appeal. One of those exceptions would be triggered if "the judgment debtor's present financial condition is such that the posting of a full bond would impose an undue financial burden. . . ." Id. at 1191. In such a case, the court "is free to exercise a discretion to fashion some other arrangement for substitute security through an appropriate restraint on the judgment debtor's financial dealings, which would furnish equal protection to the judgment creditor." Id.

The Court finds that the circumstances of this case — namely, Defendant's tenuous financial condition — warrant a waiver of the bond requirement. In order to protect the interests of the Government pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit, the Court shall adopt the remedy selected by the Tenth Circuit inMiami Int'l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 874 (10^th Cir. 1986). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall not dispose of any assets, save those necessary for living, while the appeal is pending before the Fifth Circuit.