TD Bank, N.A. v. Miller
- Victor Marrero
- 1:18-cv-10608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In TD Bank v. Miller, Judge Marrero denied Miller’s request to stay the judgment without bond and ordered any supplemental-record motions within seven days.
Barbara Miller’s request to pause the judgment without posting a bond was denied. TD Bank, N.A. remained entitled to proceed without the requested stay, while the parties were given seven days to submit motions to supplement the record on remand.
What happened
TD Bank, N.A. v. Miller followed the Second Circuit’s partial remand of the case. Barbara Miller asked the court to pause the judgment while the court considered the issues sent back.
Miller had not provided a bond or other security. She argued that the usual factors supported a stay and relied on the risk that posting a bond would harm her other creditors. TD Bank opposed the request because she had not posted the required bond.
Judge Victor Marrero denied Miller’s motion for a stay without bond. The court also directed the parties to submit any motions to add to the record within seven days, after which it would decide the remanded issues based on the parties’ letters.
The detailed version
- TD Bank, N.A. v. Miller · No. 1:18-cv-10608
- Victor Marrero
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
The Second Circuit had partially remanded the case. Barbara Miller then requested a stay of the judgment while the district court considered the issues on remand. TD Bank, N.A. opposed the request, arguing that Miller had not posted the bond required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). Miller submitted an additional letter explaining her request.
Court’s analysis
Rule 62(b) allows a party to obtain a stay of a judgment by providing a bond or other security. Because Miller had provided neither, the court considered whether it should waive the bond requirement. The court cited five nonexclusive factors recognized by the Second Circuit: the complexity of collecting the judgment; the time needed to obtain a judgment after an appeal; the court’s confidence that funds would be available to pay the judgment; whether the defendant’s ability to pay was so clear that a bond would waste money; and whether requiring a bond would put the defendant’s other creditors in an insecure position.
Miller relied only on the fifth factor, arguing that she could not post a bond without endangering the rights of her legitimate creditors. The court explained that courts in the Southern District of New York had repeatedly rejected requests based only on that factor. It also stated that the main purposes of the bond requirement were to guarantee recovery for the party that ultimately prevailed and to protect the judgment debtor from losing money if the decision were reversed. The court found that Miller had not shown that any of the other factors supported waiving the bond requirement.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero denied Miller’s motion for a stay without bond. The order also directed the parties to submit any motions to supplement the record within seven days of the order. The court stated that it would then decide the issues on remand based on the parties’ letters submitted after the Second Circuit’s remand order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.