Monday, February 3, 2014

No bond. No consent. No stay.

Sharifpour v. Le, No. G04249 (D3 Jan 31, 2014)

After plaintiffs obtained a $700,000 judgment against defendants, defendants appealed. They further moved to have enforcement stayed pending appeal without having to post a supersedeas bond. When plaintiffs failed to respond, the court granted the motion and stayed execution. The court of appeal here holds that that was improper. Unless the judgment creditor consents, the court does not have the power to stay the enforcement of a judgment where the Code provides for a stay only upon the giving of an undertaking. Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 918. Because § 917.1(a)(1) requires an undertaking to stay enforcement of a money judgment, the trial court here could not enter a stay longer than ten days without plaintiffs’ consent. And because no statute dictated that a non-response to a stay motion could be deemed a consent, and there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that plaintiffs implicitly consented, plaintiffs’ mere failure to oppose the motion was insufficient to be treated as their consent to a stay of enforcement. The trial court thus abused its discretion in entering a stay of enforcement.

Reversed.

No comments:

Post a Comment