Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Fla. Stat. ch. 64.04, supra, provides that a municipality shall not be required to furnish surety on any judicial bond required by any law of this state, or order of court, in any legal proceedings in which it may be a party. When this section is read in conjunction with the later expression of the legislature in Fla. Stat. ch. 59.14, it becomes apparent that the authority of the trial court to require supersedeas of a municipality has been withdrawn. This right now vests exclusively in the appellate court by reason of the specific provisions of ch. 59.14(2). The two statutes are not in conflict. The express power granted to the appellate court in ch. 59.14(2) limits the general application of ch. 64.04.
Appellant city sought review of an order requiring that it post bond to supersede a judgment in appellee's action against it for unsafe sidewalk conditions. The trial court below relied on Fla. Stat. ch. 64.04 as authorizing supersedeas bond without surety. The said section provided that a municipality shall not be required to furnish surety on any judicial bond "required by any law of this state, or order of court, in any legal proceedings in which it may be a party."
Could the trial court rely on Fla. Stat. ch. 64.04 in requiring the appellant city to post bond to supersede a judgment in appellee's action against the city?
On appeal, the court found that the statute did not apply. When ch. 640.04 was read in conjunction with Fla. Stat. ch. 59.14(2), it was apparent that previously granted authority of the trial court to require supersedeas by a municipality had been withdrawn. While the two statutes were not in conflict, the express powers in ch. 59.24(2) limited the trial court's authority under ch. 64.04. Thus, appellant's filing of a notice of appeal in the case was sufficient to stay the effect of the final judgment without the necessity of a supersedeas bond. The supersedeas order and bond filed thereunder were thus vacated.