Eileen Dennis GilBride
40 North Central Ave., Ste. 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 263-1787
[email protected]
Bar #009220

This amendment has been sorely needed ever since the statute was enacted and the corresponding rule change was adopted. The unfortunate result of the current language has been that defendants who successfully defeat a claim and are awarded attorneys' fees or any kind of sanctions (including Rule 68 sanctions) are unable to require the plaintiff to post a bond during the pendency of an appeal, to protect the defendant's ability to collect such award when the appeal is over. This is so, even if the defendant has been awarded fees because the trial court has found plaintiff's claim to be frivolous. In other words, a plaintiff who has brought a frivolous claim and been sanctioned for it can cause further 'damages' to the defendant by prosecuting a frivolous appeal with no skin in the game. This undermines the purpose of supersedeas bonds to protect the successful party's ability to collect a judgment during the pendency of an appeal. I have two suggestions, however. First, add the word "sanctions" to section 7(a)(4)(A) to ensure that the successful party's right to collect those is as protected during the pendency of the appeal as fees costs, and pre-judgment interest. Second, add to that section "plus anticipated post-judgment interest accruing during the pendency of the appeal." Because the judgment will be accruing post-judgment interest during the pendency of the appeal, there is no reason to omit that amount from the bond. The successful party's ability to collect accruing interest is an important right that should be protected.

Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
General Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
(602) 340-7236
[email protected]