NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
|
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
798/aHJC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Maximum Amount for Supersedes Bonds |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Chavez |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Attorney General’s Office (AG)
LFC Files
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HJC Amendment
The House Judiciary Amendment increases the maximum amount of a supersedes bond filed by the appellant in an appeal of a civil action in order to stay execution of the judgment to fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). The Amendment further provides that notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A (which sets forth the maximum amount of a supersedes bond) and subsection B (where recovery is for other than a fixed amount of money) if the appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an appellant is dissipating assets, a court shall enter orders that are necessary to protect the appellee and shall require the appellant to post a bond that is equal to the total amount of judgment.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 798 amends
Section 39-3-22 NMSA 1978 to provide for a maximum amount of a supersedeas bond
filed by the appellant in an appeal of a civil action in order to stay
execution of the judgment to twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000).
Additionally, House
Bill 798 provides that if an appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence
that an appellant is dissipating assets outside the ordinary course of business
to avoid payment of a judgment, the court may, in order to protect the
appellee, require the appellant to post a bond that is equal to the total
amount of judgment when that amount exceeds twenty-five million dollars
($25,000,000).
Further, House Bill
798 provides that if the decision appealed from, or from which a writ of error
is sued out, is for a recovery other than a fixed amount of money, the amount
of the bond, if any, shall not exceed twenty-five million dollars
($25,000,000).
The effective date of
this provision is
Significant
Issues
According to the Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC), SCRA 1986, 1-062 (D) could conflict with the additional
language in the bill. SCSRA 1986, 1-062
(D) provides that the bond shall be conditioned on the satisfaction of, and
compliance with, the judgment in full together with costs, interest and damages
for delay if for any reason the appeal is dismissed or if the judgment is
affirmed, and to satisfy in full such modification of the judgment and such
costs, interest and damages as the appellate court may adjudge and award.
If further provides that when the judgment is
for the recovery of money, the amount of the bond shall be such sum to cover
the whole amount of the judgment remaining unsatisfied, plus costs, interest
and damages for delay.
If a conflict does occur, the court would have
to rule on what takes precedence—the rule or the state statue.
FC/yr/njw