Case link on
Justia
Miami International sued their lawyer, Paynter, for malpractice. They won a $2.1 million judgement against him (ouch). Upon executing the judgement, Paynter moved for a stay and a bond for less than the full judgement amount. A discovery hearing was held, at which point Paynter was revealed as being as flagrantly retarded as Russ:
During the discovery hearing, Paynter acknowledged that: on December 23, 1985, three days after the jury had awarded the $2,100,000 verdict in Miami's favor, he had closed his bank account by withdrawing $111,865.88; after paying his personal bills, he lost between $60,000 and $70,000 gambling in Las Vegas; he closed his law office on February 12, 1986 at which time many records were destroyed; and that he had no significant accounts receivable. Although our transcript of the March 19, 1986, hearing is incomplete, Paynter's responses during the hearing indicate that he did not have any significant assets.
Paynter's malpractice insurance maxed out at $500k. The court ordered his insurance to post the full $500k into an account, along with other things like complying with discovery and not selling any assets. Miami appealed this, claiming "that Rule 62(d) requires a
supersedeas bond for the full amount of a judgment as a condition for a stay of execution absent extraordinary circumstances".
The appeals court
explicitly says that the lesser bond was reasonable because there was a discovery hearing that provided ample evidence that Paynter couldn't pay a higher bond, and trying to do so would ruin him. He was also under court order not to transfer any assets, further protecting Miami's interests.
Greer conveniently leaves out that ruling's precedent cite (emphasis added):
Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, supra, ("when setting supersedeas bonds courts seek to protect judgment creditors as fully as possible without irreparably injuring judgment debtors".)