Wallace v. Hon. James D. Smith et al.
Jul 25, 2023OUTCOME: Affirmed
The Arizona Supreme Court resolved the conflict between Arizona Rule of Appellate Procedure 7(A)(4)(A), which requires the court include damages, costs, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest in ca ... lculating the bond., and A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1), which requires the bond be in the lesser amount of the damages excluding punitive damages or fifty percent of appellant's net worth or $25 million. Here, the court entered judgment against the defendant for wrongfully filing a UCC-1 lien awarding $500 in statutory damages, $38,322.04 in attorneys' fees and $338.51 in taxable costs. Defendant sought to appeal and argued the supersedeas bond should be set at zero because he claimed there were no damages under A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1). Instead, the trial court set the bond in compliance with ARCAP. The Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1), which limits a supersedeas bond to the amount of judgment damages, unconstitutionally conflicts with ARCAP 7(a)(4)(A) because the process for setting a supersedeas bond is a procedural matter over which the judicial branch has authority, per article 6, § 5(5) of the Arizona Constitution.
