Wallace v. Smith, No. CV-22-0143-SA (July 25, 2023) (J. Brutinel) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2023/CV220143SA.pdf

ARCAP 7(A)(4)(A) REQUIRING SUPERSEDEAS BOND BE CALCULATED TO INCLUDE “DAMAGES, COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST” CONTROLS OVER A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1) WHICH ONLY REQUIRES THE BOND COVER DAMAGES

After entry of a civil judgment the defendant can stay enforcement of the judgement by filing a supersedeas bond. Arizona Rule of Appellate Procedure [ARCAP]  7(A)(4)(A) requires the court include damages, costs, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest in calculating the bond.  A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1) requires the bond be in the lesser amount of the damages excluding punitive damages or fifty percent of appellant's net worth or $25 million.  Here the court entered judgment against the defendant for wrongfully filing a UCC-1 lien awarding $500 in statutory damages,  $38,322.04 in attorneys' fees and $338.51 in taxable costs. Defendant sought to appeal and argued the supersedeas bond should be set at zero because he claimed there were no damages under A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)(1). Instead, the trial court set the bond in compliance with ARCAP. Defendant brought this special action and the Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and affirmed.

The court rule and statute are in direct conflict and cannot be harmonized.  Therefore,  because  the method of calculating a supersedeas bond is purely procedural if falls within the purview of the judicial branch and not the legislative branch.  Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5) Accordingly, the trial court properly set the bond in conformance with ARCAP 7 (A)4(A) and disregarded the statute.