Silver Beach Towers Property etc. v. Silver Beach Investments of Destin, LC
16-4555
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Feb 20, 2017Background
- This is an appeal from a judgment awarding appellees $1,827,372.18 plus $292,497.34 pre-judgment interest.
- Appellees cross-appealed and sought review of a stay order under Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(f).
- The lower court stayed the money judgment, imposing a $175,000 bond, and appellees argued this bypassed the automatic stay in Rule 9.310(b)(1).
- There is a split among DCA courts on whether Rule 9.310(b)(1) is the exclusive method to obtain a stay of a money judgment.
- The Third District has held exclusivity; the Second District has rejected exclusivity; this court sides with the Second District.
- The court affirmed the stay order and denied appellees’ motion for review, certifying conflict with the Third District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 9.310(b)(1) the exclusive method for a money judgment stay? | Appellees contend bond under 9.310(b)(1) is the only stay method. | Appellants contend trial court can stay under 9.310(a) with nonbond conditions. | Not exclusive; trial court may stay with adequate nonbond conditions. |
| May a trial court impose nonbond stay conditions under 9.310(a)? | Bond amount controls stay when automatic stay is used. | Court may impose stay conditions other than a bond if adequate to assure payment. | Yes; stay can be conditioned on nonbond terms. |
| Should the court certify conflict with Mellon United Nat’l Bank v. Cochran? | Unclear authority to stay nonbond terms; need review due to conflict. | No exclusive method; court may affirm stay under rule 9.310(a). | Conflict certified; motion for review denied; order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Ass’n, Inc., 94 So.3d 541 (Fla. 2012) (bond not always fixed; stay rights under 9.310(b)(1) can be limited)
- Mellon United Nat’l Bank v. Cochran, 776 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ( Third District held 9.310(b)(1) exclusive)
- Platt v. Russek, 921 So.2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Second District rejected exclusivity of 9.310(b)(1))
- Waller v. DSA Group, Inc., 606 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (nonbond stay avenues exist under 9.310(a))
- Palm Beach Heights Dev. & Sales Corp. v. Decillis, 385 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (automatic stay via bond; status quo preserved)
- Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 385 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (bond requirements; stay mechanics)