¶ 1 Barry Lowe, David Whitney, and Dawn Whitney appeal the trial court’s January 7, 2000 order granting costs to appel-lees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
¶ 2 This action arose from an action to quiet title. In 1968, appellees began using the vacant lot adjacent to their property. See Parkinson v. Lowe, No. 1819 Pittsburgh 1998,
¶ 3 Appellants raise one issue on appeal: “Did the trial court err when it granted plaintiffs!’] request to tax costs, under the rule 2742; transcripts costs for testimony before the lower сourt, the cost of an injunction bond, supplemental reproduced record cost and depositions costs before trials?” Appellants’ Brief and Record at 1.
¶ 5 While their argument is undeveloped and unclear, appellants appear to claim that the trial judge erred in awarding the costs of the supplemental reproduced record, the injunction bond, and the transcripts of various depositions and notes of testimоny to appellees. See Appellants’ Brief and Record at 6.
¶ 6 First, the cost of the supplemental reproduced record is covered by Rule 2742, which provides that “[t]he cost of printing or otherwise producing necessary copies of briefs and reproduced records ... shall be taxable.” Pa.R.A.P. 2742. The Commonwealth Court has previously stated that “[wjith respect to the costs of producing the supplemental reproduced record ... we note [the appellee] ... will be entitled to such costs under Pa.R.A.P. 2741(2) and 2742.” McCluskey v. Washington Township,
¶ 7 Next, appellants dispute the trial court’s award of the cost of the injunction bond. During thе injunction hearing, the trial court stated:
Mr. Lowe [one of the appellants] is a businessman and has made a purchase of property, has invested his monеy in this deed. Granted, it isn’t a whole lot of money, but I will; in fact, increase the bond at [appellants’ counsel’s] request to $3,000 which, I believe is the purchase pricе of the quit claim deed....
.The bond is increased to $3,000 and that is, in fact, a taxable cost. If the [appellees] prevail, that money is recoverable frоm the Defendant^]. If the [appellees] don’t prevail, that money is available as liquidated damages to the parties.
N.T. Injunction Hearing, 7/11/94, at 59-60. After appellees prevailed at trial, the trial court awarded them the cost of the injunction bond.
¶ 8 Rule 2771 reads:
Costs incurred in the preparation and transmission of the record, the costs of the notes of testimony or other transcript, if necessary to a determination of the appeal, [and] the premiums paid for cost of supersedeas bonds or other bonds to preserve ñghts pending appeal ... shall be taxed in the lower court as costs of the appeal in favor оf the party entitled to costs under this chapter.
Pa.R.A.P. 2771 (emphasis added). Appel-lees argue that an injunction bond is comparable to a supersedеas bond and thus included under Rule 2771. They cite Cadillac Real Estate Co. v. Roddy Realty, Inc., 41 D & C.2d 199 (Pa.Com.Pl.Luzerne Cty.1966) as persuasive authority. In that case, however, the rule was Pa.R.C.P. 1523. The rule at hand is one of appеllate procedure. Further, we disagree that in-junctive bonds are similar to supersedeas bonds.
¶ 9 The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to “maintain thе status quo and protect [the winning party] from injury during the appeal period.” Common
¶ 10 The purpose of an injunction bond, on the other hand, is “to protect appellants in the event that thе preliminary injunction was improperly granted and damages were sustained thereby.” College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William H. Newbauer, Inc.,
¶ 11 Appellants next claim that the trial court erred in allowing appellees the costs for transcribing the notes of testimony and depositions. Again, Rule 2771 specifically allows appellees to receive “the costs of the notes of testimony or other transcript, if necessary to a determination of the appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 2771 (emphasis added). Appellants do not point to any specific notes of testimony that were unnecessary to the appeal, and indeed, it appears that such testimony was necessary on direct appeal. The depоsitions, on the other hand, were not necessary on appeal but rather were necessary for appellees prior to trial. We have already determined in Kojeszewski v. Brigantine Castle and Amusement Corp.,
¶ 12 While appellees claim that the rule in Pennsylvania is that they can recover deposition transcript costs where the depositions “were reasonably necessary to the preparation of trial are recoverable,” Brief for Appellees at 8, they rely on Raio v. American Airlines,
¶ 13 Order affirmed as to the notes of testimony and supplemental reproduced record, and reversed as to the depositions and injunction bond. Remanded for further action pursuant to this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished."
Notes
. We note that appellants did not state our standard of review as required by our rules of procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2).