RULE 62. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT
Rule 62.05: Bond for Stay.
A bond for stay shall have sufficient surety and:
(1) If an appeal is from a judgment directing the payment of money, the bond shall be conditioned to secure the payment of the judgment in full, interest, damages for delay, and costs on appeal; in cases involving judgments payable in periodic installments, bond shall be fixed in such a manner as the court shall deem sufficient;
(2) If an appeal is from a judgment ordering the assignment, sale, delivery or possession of personal or real property, the bond shall be conditioned to secure obedience of the judgment and payment for the use, occupancy, detention and damage or waste of the property from the time of appeal until delivery of possession of the property and costs on appeal. If the appellant places personal property in the custody of an officer designated by the court, such fact shall be considered by the court in fixing the amount of the bond. A party may proceed as an indigent person without giving any security as provided in Rule 18 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon motion submitted to the trial court and for good cause shown, the bond for stay may be set in an amount less than that called for in the first sentence of this section of this rule. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court may consider all appropriate factors including, but not limited to, the appealing party's financial condition and the amount of the appealing party's insurance coverage, if any. If the motion is granted, the party may obtain a stay by giving such security as the court deems proper. If leave to obtain a stay required by this rule is denied, the court shall state in writing the reasons for denial.
(3) If the amount of a judgment is fully bonded as provided in subsection (1), the court upon motion may order the judgment creditor to remove any judgment lien from the register’s office.
[As amended July 1, 1979, and by order entered January 31, 1984, effective August 20, 1984; by order filed January 31, 2003, effective July 1, 2003; and by order filed December 28, 2012, effective July 1, 2013.]
Advisory Commission Comments .
The rule was amended to replace the term “poor person” with the term “indigent person.” The amendment was not intended to change the meaning or application of the rule.Back to Top