Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota conditionally granted in part and denied in part Retsel Corporation’s motion to waive a supersedeas bond and stay execution of a $64,003 judgment. The court stayed enforcement pending resolution of post-trial motions, conditioned on Retsel retaining any foreclosure-sale excess proceeds equal to the judgment in escrow for 30 days. If Retsel would not agree to that condition, it was required to post a $64,003 supersedeas bond within 14 days.
Holdings
- Execution of the judgment was stayed pending resolution of the post-trial motions, provided that Retsel retained in escrow any excess proceeds from the sheriff's foreclosure sale in the amount of the judgment for thirty days after the sale.
- The motion to waive the supersedeas bond was conditionally granted in part because Retsel lacked the present ability to post a bond, but the waiver was conditioned on retaining qualifying foreclosure-sale proceeds in escrow. If Retsel refused that condition, it was required to post a $64,003 supersedeas bond within fourteen days or face collection efforts.
- The court declined to require a bond based on the possibility that Retsel's shareholders had sufficient personal assets, because doing so would disregard Retsel's corporate structure.
Questions Presented
- Whether execution of the existing judgment should be stayed pending resolution of Retsel's post-trial motions and, if appropriate, entry of an amended judgment.
- Whether Retsel should be permitted to obtain the stay without posting a full supersedeas bond.
- What conditions were necessary to protect plaintiffs' ability to recover the judgment while preserving Retsel's opportunity to pursue post-trial relief and an appeal.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Poplar Grove Planting & Refin. Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979)(followed)
- New Access Comm’ns LLC v. Qwest Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (D. Minn. 2005)(followed)
- Regions Bank v. Lamb, 2017 WL 5736371, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 15, 2017)(followed)
- Skrovig v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 4:10-CV-04022, 2012 WL 2505749, at *2–3 (D.S.D. June 28, 2012)(followed)
- Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 760–61 (D.C. Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904–05 (7th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…