H.B. 878: Legislating Unfairness on Appeals
Faithful Attorney @ Blog readers will have pieced together the cause-and-effect relationship between this blog's general focus on appellate practice and the lack of attention paid toward bills pending at the Mississippi Legislature, but at least one amendment nevertheless merits this scribe's scrutiny.
House Bill 878 is a disaster waiting to happen. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Philip Gunn of Clinton, would cap appeals bonds at $1 million for any corporation fitting the definition of a "small business" and $25 million for any other appellant. In the post-Tort Reform era, the latter limit rarely, if ever, will amount to a hill of beans. But the $1 million limit presents a real problem.
First, for laymen, a quick lesson in appellate practice. Typically, when a party loses in trial court, she can stay the judgment of the trial court during the appeals process by posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment. This is called an appeal with supersedeas. Essentially, it's the losing party's way of posting collateral; think of it as the legal equivalent of Kramer putting up David Berkowitz's mailbag in that episode of "Seinfeld" where he took to gambling on airport arrivals.
Under H.B. 878, though, Kramer potentially would have to put up only a fraction of Berkowitz's mailbag, so to speak. The problem with that result is obvious: if XYZ Corp. is held liable to the tune of $3 million but only has to put up $1 million in an appeal bond, then they proceed with litigation for a year or more without any guarantee made to anyone regarding their fitness to pay the full judgment.
And that's to say nothing of the fundamental unfairness of allowing businesses to appeal judgments on the cheap without extending the same favor to individuals.
The bill currently sits in Judiciary A. Here's hoping it stays there.
Comments