Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108 (2026)

Preservation of right to appeal judgment without execution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-2108. Preservation of right to appeal judgment without execution

A. If a plaintiff in any civil action obtains a judgment under any legal theory, the amount of the bond that is necessary to stay execution during the course of all appeals or discretionary reviews of that judgment by any appellate court shall be set as the lesser of the following:

1. The total amount of damages awarded excluding punitive damages.

2. Fifty per cent of the appellant's net worth.

3. Twenty-five million dollars.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, if an appellee proves by clear and convincing evidence that an appellant is intentionally dissipating assets outside the ordinary course of business to avoid payment of a judgment, the court may require the appellant to post a bond in an amount up to the full amount of the judgment.

C. Notwithstanding subsection A, if an appellant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is likely to suffer substantial economic harm if required to post bond in an amount required under subsection A, the trial court may lower the bond amount to an amount that will not cause the appellant substantial economic harm.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 36× “Specifically, City Center argued that the court’s ruling conflicted with Rule 7, as well as A.R.S. § 12-2108, which contains language similar to the rule.”
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 367 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 18× “¶ 9 Under AR.S. § 12-2108 A.1, “[i]f a plaintiff in any civil action obtains a judgment under any legal theory, the amount of the bond that is necessary to stay execution during the course of all appeals .”
AOR Direct LLC v. Bustamante, 380 P.3d 672 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 24× “AOR argues that A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 7 mandate that the supersedeas bond amount be set as $614,687.”
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Rogers, 366 P.3d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “In requesting a stay without bond, Hoag relied on Rule 7(a)(4), a *108 procedural rule that governs supersedeas bonds, and which tracks the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-2108. That statute—which applies to civil judgments “under any legal theory”—limits the amount of the bond…”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2108(C) (allowing for reduction of a supersedeas bond upon a showing that the appellant will suffer substantial economic harm).”
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 370 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “11 are not “damages awarded” for purposes of calculating a supersedeas bond pursuant to AR.S. § 12-2108(A) and Ariz. R. Civ.App. P.”
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest, 449 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “¶14 In Arizona, the judiciary’s authority in this sphere has been narrowed by A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7. Under Rule 7, the extent of the court’s discretion in setting the amount of the bond turns upon the relief granted by the judgment upon which the appeal is based.”
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz, 532 P.3d 752 (Ariz. 2023). · cites it 23× “To be sure, some of the 2018 changes to ARCAP 7 addressed procedural gaps that arose after § 12-2108 was enacted. See, e.g., ARCAP 7(a)(5) (providing guidance for judgments involving “the recovery of an interest in real or personal property”); ARCAP 7(a)(6) (providing guidance…”
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin, 426 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “§ 33-420(A), are damages for purposes of determining the amount of the supersedeas bond under A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7, Ariz. R. Civ.”
Starr Pass Resort Devs., LLC v. Harrington, 431 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 26× “EPPICH, Judge: ¶ 1 The petitioners 1 seek special-action review of the respondent judge's determination that he lacks authority to permit a property bond to stay a judgment pending appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7, ARCAP, and that any appeal bond must be a cash…”
City Ctr. v. Hon. jantzen/thienes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “JANTZEN/THIENES Decision of the Court ARCAP 7; see also A.R.S. § 12-2108 (B), (C). As they did in the superior court, Plaintiffs argue there has been a dissipation of assets by City Center.”
Perkins v. Hon. brain/barnett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Perkins and Rosenberg opposed and sought a bond in the full amount of the judgment, arguing that the attorney’s fee award constituted damages and that the bond-reduction provisions of § 12-2108 did not apply to a plaintiff’s appeal from a defense judgment.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(0) — 1 case
AOR Direct LLC v. Bustamante, 380 P.3d 672 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “AOR argues that A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 7 mandate that the supersedeas bond amount be set as $614,687.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(A) — 7 cases
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, City Center argued that the court’s ruling conflicted with Rule 7, as well as A.R.S. § 12-2108, which contains language similar to the rule.”
AOR Direct LLC v. Bustamante, 380 P.3d 672 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “AOR argues that A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 7 mandate that the supersedeas bond amount be set as $614,687.”
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 370 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “11 are not “damages awarded” for purposes of calculating a supersedeas bond pursuant to AR.S. § 12-2108(A) and Ariz. R. Civ.App. P.”
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin, 426 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 33-420(A), are damages for purposes of determining the amount of the supersedeas bond under A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7, Ariz. R. Civ.”
Rindlisbacher v. Steinway & Sons Inc. (D. Ariz. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(A)(1) — 5 cases
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 370 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “11 are not “damages awarded” for purposes of calculating a supersedeas bond pursuant to AR.S. § 12-2108(A) and Ariz. R. Civ.App. P.”
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, City Center argued that the court’s ruling conflicted with Rule 7, as well as A.R.S. § 12-2108, which contains language similar to the rule.”
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz, 532 P.3d 752 (Ariz. 2023). “To be sure, some of the 2018 changes to ARCAP 7 addressed procedural gaps that arose after § 12-2108 was enacted. See, e.g., ARCAP 7(a)(5) (providing guidance for judgments involving “the recovery of an interest in real or personal property”); ARCAP 7(a)(6) (providing guidance…”
City Ctr. v. Hon. jantzen/thienes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “JANTZEN/THIENES Decision of the Court ARCAP 7; see also A.R.S. § 12-2108 (B), (C). As they did in the superior court, Plaintiffs argue there has been a dissipation of assets by City Center.”
Perkins v. Hon. brain/barnett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Perkins and Rosenberg opposed and sought a bond in the full amount of the judgment, arguing that the attorney’s fee award constituted damages and that the bond-reduction provisions of § 12-2108 did not apply to a plaintiff’s appeal from a defense judgment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(A)(2) — 1 case
Perkins v. Hon. brain/barnett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Perkins and Rosenberg opposed and sought a bond in the full amount of the judgment, arguing that the attorney’s fee award constituted damages and that the bond-reduction provisions of § 12-2108 did not apply to a plaintiff’s appeal from a defense judgment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(B) — 6 cases
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, City Center argued that the court’s ruling conflicted with Rule 7, as well as A.R.S. § 12-2108, which contains language similar to the rule.”
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest, 449 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “¶14 In Arizona, the judiciary’s authority in this sphere has been narrowed by A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7. Under Rule 7, the extent of the court’s discretion in setting the amount of the bond turns upon the relief granted by the judgment upon which the appeal is based.”
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin, 426 P.3d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 33-420(A), are damages for purposes of determining the amount of the supersedeas bond under A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7, Ariz. R. Civ.”
Starr Pass Resort Devs., LLC v. Harrington, 431 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “EPPICH, Judge: ¶ 1 The petitioners 1 seek special-action review of the respondent judge's determination that he lacks authority to permit a property bond to stay a judgment pending appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7, ARCAP, and that any appeal bond must be a cash…”
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz, 532 P.3d 752 (Ariz. 2023). “To be sure, some of the 2018 changes to ARCAP 7 addressed procedural gaps that arose after § 12-2108 was enacted. See, e.g., ARCAP 7(a)(5) (providing guidance for judgments involving “the recovery of an interest in real or personal property”); ARCAP 7(a)(6) (providing guidance…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2108(C) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017). “A.R.S. § 12-2108(C) (allowing for reduction of a supersedeas bond upon a showing that the appellant will suffer substantial economic harm).”
City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, City Center argued that the court’s ruling conflicted with Rule 7, as well as A.R.S. § 12-2108, which contains language similar to the rule.”
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest, 449 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “¶14 In Arizona, the judiciary’s authority in this sphere has been narrowed by A.R.S. § 12-2108 and Rule 7. Under Rule 7, the extent of the court’s discretion in setting the amount of the bond turns upon the relief granted by the judgment upon which the appeal is based.”
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz, 532 P.3d 752 (Ariz. 2023). “To be sure, some of the 2018 changes to ARCAP 7 addressed procedural gaps that arose after § 12-2108 was enacted. See, e.g., ARCAP 7(a)(5) (providing guidance for judgments involving “the recovery of an interest in real or personal property”); ARCAP 7(a)(6) (providing guidance…”
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit (Ariz. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.