Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-01756
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank, Judge Wright partly granted and partly denied a request to pause judgment enforcement, granting a limited bond-free stay.
BMO Harris Bank N.A. and Douglas A. Kelley, as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust; the order temporarily affects enforcement of the judgment against BMO Harris.
What happened
In Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., BMO Harris asked the court to pause enforcement of the judgment while an appeal was pending. Douglas A. Kelley, acting as trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, opposed the request and argued that it was premature.
The court granted BMO Harris’s motion in part and denied it in part. It stayed enforcement of the November 9, 2022 judgment until 30 days after the court rules on the parties’ upcoming post-judgment motions, unless the court orders otherwise. The court also waived the requirement that BMO Harris provide a bond or other security for this limited stay.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright issued the order on December 8, 2022. The order did not decide whether the judgment should be changed or whether BMO Harris would succeed on appeal.
The detailed version
- Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · No. 0:19-cv-01756
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
After a jury trial, the court entered judgment on November 9, 2022. BMO Harris moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 for a stay of execution and enforcement of that judgment while an appeal was pending. A stay temporarily prevents a party from enforcing a judgment.
BMO Harris argued that the National Bank Act automatically entitled it to a stay without a bond. In the alternative, it asked the court to waive the bond requirement, limit the bond to $150 million under Rule 62(f), or approve its proposed bond securing the full judgment amount. The Trustee opposed the motion, arguing that it was premature because the Trustee had agreed not to seek enforcement until after post-judgment motions were resolved and would give BMO Harris 30 days’ notice before seeking enforcement.
Analysis
The court explained that enforcement is automatically stayed for 30 days after judgment unless the court orders otherwise. It also explained that, after judgment, a court may stay enforcement for a specified period if the judgment debtor provides a bond or other security. Courts ordinarily set the bond at the full judgment amount plus interest, costs, and damages for delay, but a court may waive the bond requirement in appropriate circumstances.
The court concluded that a limited stay was warranted, but only until 30 days after it ruled on the parties’ forthcoming post-judgment motions. The court assumed without deciding that it had authority to impose a bond or security requirement on BMO Harris and exercised its discretion to waive that requirement for the limited stay. In doing so, it considered factors including the complexity of collection, the time needed to obtain the judgment if affirmed on appeal, BMO Harris’s financial position, and its ability to pay.
Disposition
The court ordered that BMO Harris’s motion for a stay of execution pending appeal was granted in part and denied in part. Execution on the November 9, 2022 judgment was stayed until 30 days after the court rules on the forthcoming post-judgment motions, unless otherwise ordered. The requirement that BMO Harris post a bond or other security for that stay was waived. Any request to dissolve, extend, or modify the stay must be made by motion supported by a legal and factual basis. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.