Florida Statute 45.045 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 45
CIVIL PROCEDURE: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 45.045

45.045 Limitations on supersedeas bond; exception.—

(1) Except for certified class actions subject to s. 768.733, in any civil action brought under any legal theory, the amount of a supersedeas bond necessary to obtain an automatic stay of execution of a judgment granting any type of relief during the entire course of all appeals or discretionary reviews, may not exceed $50 million for each appellant, regardless of the amount of the judgment appealed. The $50 million amount shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index compiled by the United States Department of Labor.

(2) In any civil action brought under any legal theory, a party seeking a stay of execution of a judgment pending review of any amount may move the court to reduce the amount of a supersedeas bond required to obtain such a stay. The court, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown, may reduce the supersedeas bond or may set other conditions for the stay with or without a bond. The court may not reduce the supersedeas bond if the appellant has an insurance or indemnification policy applicable to the case. This subsection does not apply to certified class actions subject to s. 768.733.

(3) If an appellant has posted a supersedeas bond for an amount less than that which would be required for an automatic stay pursuant to Rule 9.310(b)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellee may engage in discovery for the limited purpose of determining whether the appellant has dissipated or diverted assets outside the course of its ordinary business or is in the process of doing so.

(4) If the trial or appellate court determines that an appellant has dissipated or diverted assets outside the course of its ordinary business or is in the process of doing so, the court may enter orders necessary to protect the appellee, require the appellant to post a supersedeas bond in an amount up to, but not more than, the amount that would be required for an automatic stay pursuant to Rule 9.310(b)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and impose other remedies and sanctions as the court deems appropriate.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2006-280.

F.S. 45.045 on Google Scholar

F.S. 45.045 on Casetext

Amendments to 45.045

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 45.045

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 45.045.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 45.045

Total Results: 20

Sherrie Clements v. Club Space Management, LLC, d/b/a Club Space

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-01-24

Snippet: sanctions. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So. 2d 45, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Ms. Clements offers conclusory

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 and 2.533

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-06-08

Snippet: order in accordance with subdivision (e)(45). (45) Except as provided by law or court rule

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420 and 2.533

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-05-11

Snippet: order in accordance with subdivision (e)(45). (45) Except as provided by law or court rule

MICHAEL FRANK LAPACE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-10-17

Citation: 257 So. 3d 588

Snippet: " See, e.g., Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 45-56 (2009) (holding that exigent circumstances

The Waves of Hialeah, Inc. v. MacHado

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-04-18

Snippet: because in 2006, the Legislature enacted section 45.045, Florida Statutes (2006), which supplements rule

Portillo v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-02-22

Citation: 211 So. 3d 1135, 2017 WL 697729, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2348

Snippet: trial. . Ala. Code § 12-21-203; Alaska Stat. § 12.45.045; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101; Cal. Evid. Code §

Peterson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-06-10

Citation: 193 So. 3d 1034, 2016 WL 3199418, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8912

Snippet: nonhomicide offenders. See Floyd v. State, 87 So.3d 45, 45-46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing consecutive forty-year

Floyd W. Peterson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-06-06

Citation: 193 So. 3d 1034

Snippet: nonhomicide offenders. See Floyd v. State, 87 So. 3d 45, 45–46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing consecutive forty-year

K.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-05-12

Citation: 136 So. 3d 1289, 2014 WL 1890566, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7036

Snippet: contrary to the law. See Monteiro v. State, 477 So.2d 45, 45-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “consent to

Aventura Management, LLC v. Spiaggia Ocean Condominium Ass'n

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-01-23

Citation: 105 So. 3d 637, 2013 WL 238222, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 956

Snippet: (constitutional provisions); Goode v. State, 50 Fla. 45, 45, 39 So. 461, 463 (1905) (statutes). A corollary

Florida Department of Children & Families v. Y.C.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-03-07

Citation: 82 So. 3d 1139, 2012 WL 716091, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3676

Snippet: court explained in Monteiro v. State, 477 So.2d 45, 45-6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985): The consent to dependency

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hall

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-07-12

Citation: 67 So. 3d 1084, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10909, 2011 WL 2685609

Snippet: challenge to the $50 million bond cap in section 45.045, Florida Statutes. See 998 So.2d at 2. The court

Peterson v. Affordable Homes of Palm Beach, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-06-29

Citation: 65 So. 3d 112, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10182, 2011 WL 2555407

Snippet: Servs., Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc., 422 So.2d 45, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Millennium Group I

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo International, Ltd.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-08-12

Citation: 26 So. 3d 1, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242

Snippet: comply with post-judgment discovery under section 45.045(3) of the Florida Statutes. On cross motion, BDO

BDO Seidman v. BANCO ESPIRITO SANTO INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-04-16

Citation: 998 So. 2d 1, 2008 WL 1734148

Snippet: bond to stay execution as authorized by section 45.045 of the Florida Statutes: (1) Except for certified

Mortgage Electronic Registration v. Azize

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-02-21

Citation: 965 So. 2d 151, 2007 WL 517842

Snippet: Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., 948 So.2d 45, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("[W]e conclude that ABN had

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-01-27

Citation: 894 So. 2d 875, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 59, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 92, 2005 WL 170713

Snippet: adjudicatory hearing. See Monteiro v. State, 477 So.2d 45, 45-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that where one of

Stevens v. Lee County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-06-27

Citation: 695 So. 2d 934, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7251, 1997 WL 356525

Snippet: amount 8th $75/$75 None 9th $50/$50 None 10th $45/$45 None 11th $80/$80 $800 per diem maximum per trial

The Florida Bar v. Davis

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-06-01

Citation: 657 So. 2d 1135, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 243, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 933, 1995 WL 324119

Snippet: entered against Davis for costs in the amount of $5,045.45, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered

Bared v. Cobo

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-01-22

Citation: 379 So. 2d 666

Snippet: affairs, he is entitled to 54.55%, and Cobo only 45.45%, of the amount in question. We agree with the appellant's