[¶ 1] Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) appealed from a judgment awarding Cary Lyon $10,360.84 in property damages. Because Ford voluntarily satisfied the judgment before appealing, we conclude Ford waived its right to appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
I
[¶ 2] On January 30, 1996, Lyon’s 1994 Mercury Topaz was destroyed by fire *455 while it was parked unoccupied in a Fargo parking lot. Lyon brought this action against Ford, seeking compensation for property damage. The action was based on theories of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. At the December 1998 trial, the court denied Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1), and submitted to the jury Lyon’s theories of strict liability, negligence, negligent failure to warn and breach of warranty.
[¶ 3] The jury returned a verdict in favor of Lyon on his strict liability claim, finding the Mercury Topaz was defective and the defect caused Lyon’s damages. The jury also found Ford was not negligent, did not negligently fail to warn Lyon, and although Ford breached an express or implied warranty, that breach did not cause any damages.
[¶ 4] Judgment in favor of Lyon for $10,-360.84 was entered on February 24, 1999. Lyon requested payment from Ford the following day after receiving notice of entry of judgment. Ford paid Lyon the entire amount of the judgment on March 15, 1999, and Lyon filed a satisfaction of judgment on March 18, 1999. On April 27, 1999, this Court issued its decision in
Clarys v. Ford Motor Company,
[¶ 5] Relying on Clarys, Ford argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law because Lyon’s product liability tort claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Lyon has moved to dismiss Ford’s appeal, arguing Ford waived its right to appeal by voluntarily satisfying the judgment.
II
[¶ 6] This Court’s decisions on the effect of the payment or satisfaction of a judgment on a party’s right to appeal have not been consistent.
[¶ 7] The most recent, and the longest line of North Dakota cases applies the general rule that a party who voluntarily pays a judgment against him waives the right to appeal from the judgment.
1
See Dakota Northwestern Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Schollmeyer,
[¶ 8] Courts in other jurisdictions apply various rules to determine whether payment or satisfaction of a judgment either constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment or renders the appeal moot.
See, e.g.,
Annot.,
Defeated party’s payment or satisfaction of, or other compliance with, civil judgment as barring his right to appeal,
Some jurisdictions hold that the payment of a judgment under any circumstances bars the payer’s right to appeal. However, in the majority of jurisdictions, the effect of the payment of a judgment upon the right of appeal by the payer is determined by whether the payment was voluntary or involuntary. In other words, if the payment was voluntary, then the case is moot, but if the payment was involuntary, the appeal is not precluded. The question which often arises under this rule is what constitutes an involuntary payment of a judgment. For instance, in some jurisdictions the courts have held that a payment is involuntary if it is made under threat of execution or garnishment. There are other jurisdictions, however, which adhere to the rule that a payment is involuntary only if it is made after the issuance of an execution or garnishment. Another variation of this majority rule is a requirement that if, as a matter of right, the payer could have posted a supersedeas bond, he must show that he was unable to post such a bond, or his payment of the judgment is deemed voluntary.
See also Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. Hill,
[¶ 9] A minority of courts have expressed a view similar to the one taken by this Court in
Workman, Fisk
and
Albright,
holding unless payment of a final judgment by a judgment debtor is shown to be made with the intent to compromise or settle the matter and to abandon the right to appeal, or the payment in some way makes relief impossible in case of reversal, the payment will not be deemed to either waive the right to appeal or moot the controversy.
See, e.g., Dakota County v. Glidden,
[¶ 10] We reject the minority view, represented in North Dakota by
Workman, Fisk
and
Albright,
for both theoretical and practical reasons. The majority of courts view a judgment that is paid
*457
and satisfied of record as ceasing to have any existence.
See Dorso Trailer Sales v. American Body & Trailer, Inc.,
[¶ 11] The majority rule also promotes the interests of certainty and finality, and the judicial policy of furthering the intentions and legitimate expectations of the parties.
See Dooley v. Cal-Cut Pipe & Supply, Inc.,
[¶ 12] There are existing avenues judgment debtors may pursue to protect themselves from judgment collection efforts during the pendency of an appeal. A supersedeas bond, which may be obtained under the provisions of N.D.R.Civ.P. 62 and N.D.R.App.P. 8, is designed to maintain the status quo and protect the judgment holder against any loss it may sustain as a result of an unsuccessful appeal.
See Berg v. Berg,
The two statutory methods for suspending a judgment pending appeal cast on the judgment debtor the responsibility of securing the principal as well as the interest that will be due at litigation’s end. By allowing the obligation’s voluntary payment, the court implicitly holds that in the event of reversal the liability for interest will shift to the judgment creditor who will then be bound to make restitution of both the principal and the accrued interest. In my view, the court’s pronouncement favors the wrong parties. It accommodates judgment debtors — the parties whose appeal prolongs the litigation’s end. It is they who are relieved today from having to pay mid-appeal interest on affirmed judgments — an obligation they would bear if judgment were not paid but secured by either of the two statutory law’s authorized methods. Creditors, on the other hand, do not fare as well; they will be stuck with mid-appeal interest when compelled to make restitution following a judgment’s reversal. Unlike the court, I would leave undisturbed the legislative allocation of duty to secure mid-appeal interest. It should remain imposed on the appealing debtor. The party whose appeal postpones the obligation’s legal finality should, in the *458 event of affirmance, bear the onus of paying interest aecrudble during the period between the judgment and mandate dates.
(Emphasis in original; footnote omitted).
[¶ 13] We believe the majority view, represented in North Dakota by the
Scholl-meyer
line of cases, is the better rule and we reaffirm that a party who voluntarily pays a judgment against him waives the right to appeal from the judgment. This view is shared by our sister states.
See, e.g., Bartel v. New Haven Tp.,
[¶ 14] While a party who voluntarily pays a judgment waives the right to appeal, payment of a judgment under coercion or duress is not a waiver of the right to appeal.
See Schollmeyer,
[¶ 15] It is undisputed Ford did not pay the judgment because Lyon initiated judgment collection procedures. Lyon did not execute on the judgment.
Compare Grady
(holding payment of judgment to sheriff armed with an execution is not voluntary so as to work waiver of the right to appeal). Lyon requested payment from Ford, but made no threats of using legal process to collect the judgment. Although Ford sought to avoid accrued interest on the judgment and the “public relations disaster” which would have ensued if Lyon used legal process to enforce the judgment, these circumstances cannot fairly be interpreted as coercion or duress sufficient to render the payment involuntary.
See Poppa Builders, Inc. v. Campbell,
[¶ 16] Rather, the record indicates Ford’s payment was intended solely as a voluntary satisfaction of the judgment. When it satisfied the judgment, Ford did not indicate to Lyon in any manner it intended to reserve its right to appeal. Indeed, it appears Ford had no intention of appealing when it satisfied the judgment. Ford did not decide to appeal until this Court issued its decision in Cla'rys more than one month after Ford paid Lyon. The circumstances here are a classic example of what the majority rule was designed to prevent: allowing a party who voluntarily satisfied a judgment to change its mind and seek the court’s aid in recovering payment.
[¶ 17] Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude Ford voluntarily paid and satisfied the judgment, thereby waiving its right to appeal from the judgment.
Ill
[¶ 18] Lyon’s request for attorney fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 for defending a frivolous appeal is denied. The appeal is dismissed.
Notes
. This principle is a variation of the similar general rule that one who accepts a substantial benefit of a judgment waives the right to appeal from the judgment.
See,e.g., White v. White,