EricCartman, re: bonds

EricCartman, re: bonds
by ndtnguy (2024-04-02 19:00:46)

In answer to your question on the political board about supersedeas bonds, the bond company requires the defendant to put up collateral when issuing the bond. Sometimes the collateral can be a letter of credit, sometimes it has to be 100% of the penal amount in cash, sometimes a bond issuer might take something else. (Though, while that used to be normal, I haven't seen a supersedeas bond issued on less than 100% collateral in years.)

If you have the cash to put up the full penal sum of the bond, why bother getting a bond? A few reasons come to mind. The court may not want to handle all that cash and may require a surety bond instead (I have no idea if that is the case for Trump). The bonding company will usually put your collateral in an interest-bearing account or T-bills and get you a fair return, which the clerk won't. And if you win the appeal, you can usually get the premiums and fees paid for the bond back from the other side.

Bond

Thanks.

It makes sense that the court would want to avoid taking in almost $200mm in cash, then being on the hook for giving it back at some point.

And for ufl

If you put up cash collateral for a bond, that generally doesn't mean promising the surety you won't spend it. It means giving the surety a cashier's check and letting him hold the money. Thus the reference to the surety putting the cash somewhere it will accrue interest during the pendency of the appeal.

Thanks *