Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06

Advertisement

Viewed 5818 times

    Scott77 posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:33:00 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2415 of 3429
    Joined 4/3/2009

    Scott77 - somebody legally trained who could comment on this would be a distinct advantage but, failing that, you just need reading comprehension skills to get a rough idea of what's going on.

    AnnOMaly

    Hi AnnOMaly, yep I agree with that perspective. Just to be clear, my advise to Mr. Cedar's invitation was limited to those strolls who repeatedly come up and start hijacking other's thread that so and so was omitted out and that so and so is factually inaccurate. Specifically, the exclusion of certain strolls whose only goal is to ruin a beautful thread such as this one. Otherwise, thanks for your insightful summary.

    Scott77

    F AnnOMaly posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:39:22 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2835 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    (To Cedars). Got it. I don't understand the problem. The WTS were complaining that their motion about the bond would not be heard until January. This would be too late to do anything. The premium is due on Nov. 15 and, according to the latest document, the premium cannot be refunded past Dec. 18. They were asking to jump the queue and be heard on this matter before they had to pay.

    Scott77 - Ah I see. I doubt whether there'll be any 'bolshiness' so soon. It usually takes a little while to build up again ;-)

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:44:50 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4495 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    AnnOMaly, but the sentence I've drawn your attention to doesn't mention the premium - it merely mentions "bond payments", indicating (in my mind) that instalments of the bond had yet to be paid as of October 18th when the Ex Parte was filed. It was this sentence that led me to the conclusion that the bond hadn't been paid, and that the noise over the premium was just strategizing to try and get the bond amount reduced.

    To me, whether the bond money has actually left the Society's account and gone to wherever it needs to go is crucial in determining the real purpose behind the Watchtower's motion - strategizing aside.

    Does that make sense?

    Cedars

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:53:54 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4496 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Scott77 - thanks, I appreciate your efforts to keep trolls off my back, but I honestly don't think that is the case here!

    I'm just trying to get to the bottom of things, and two or three heads are better than one!

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:04:00 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2836 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    I see what you mean now. ...

    Gonna check the papers again ...

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:11:08 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4497 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Thanks AnnOMaly, it's late here but I look forward to reading more of your thoughts tomorrow.

    I wish these things didn't have to be so damned complex and convoluted!

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:07:22 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2837 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Thinking logically, the Court wouldn't have vacated the order about transferring assets unless the damages money was safe, untouchable. The term I saw was, 'the bond/undertaking is hereby posted ... in the amount of [$17.2 million]' This means the payment has been recorded. The bond was obtained through Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. The bond has a reference number.

    Investopedia explains 'Appeal Bond'

    A losing defendant needs this to secure his right to appeal and stay the judgment. It is required by both federal and state court. The process of appealing involves posting a full judgment in addition to posting interest. An appeal bond should be discussed early in a case, since the cost of this bond can be high and defendants are required to post this bond a few weeks after the judgment.

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/appeal-bond.asp#ixzz2AXNJ41H3

    The context of the ex-parte of Oct. 18 is substituting property for the whole cash bond caboodle, thus avoiding paying the premium(s) altogether, or else considerably reducing the cash bond which consequently would reduce the premium(s). If they hadn't already put aside the cash in a bond, Patterson would be substituting for what? Nothing. They would just be offering property as security from the get-go. The confusing wording "bond payments" has to refer to the premiums.

    The $17.2 million is already bonded, tied up, as of Sept. 18. The (insurance) premium on it is due Nov. 15.

    And from the 10/26 Motion, 19744415, p. 2: "the Church Defendants duly procured and filed an appellate bond with this Court with the face value of $17,277,299.37 ... that bond represents 1.5 times the Court's final judgment of $11,519,199 awarded against the Church Defendants. ... The annual premium on that appellate bond is, not surprisingly inordinately expensive. ... $86,386 per annum, with that full amount becoming vested and non-refundable by the bonding surety after December 18, 2012."

    Hence the motion to substitute property or reduce the cash value of the bond.

    M 144001 posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:36:21 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2636 of 3013
    Joined 6/24/2002

    <<< Mr. cedars ,

    I thought that was a good invitation. However, I think, it would be even more interesting to limit to only those who are trained Attorneys or Lawyers. Specifically, exclude certain individuals whose only goal is to ruin a beautful thread such as this one. -- Scott77>>>

    Scott,

    Stop trying to hijack this thread with your petty stupidity. Take your efforts to instigate conflict with you back to the kingdom hall where you belong.

    cedars posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:37:07 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 4498 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Hi AnnOMaly - thanks for that. I understand that the bond was "posted" and is therefore viewed as "paid", and that Travelers are normally involved in this regard, but I have reason to believe that, as of this moment, no money has actually left the Watchtower's account. I believe this whole thing has very little to do with the premium itself, and that the premium is just being used as part of an elaborate strategy to get the bond amount reduced (or put up as property) - which is what will cost them the most money as the appeal proceedings drag on. My understanding is that it will be cheaper for them to put up the property as collateral directly with the court rather than to do this with a third-party insurance company.

    That's my understanding anyway. I would be great if we could get some kind of definitive explanation to cut through the legalese and explain everything.

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:40:57 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2838 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    You have 'reason to believe' the $17.2 million is still in the WTS's possession?

    I can only go by what is said in the court documents. If your 'reason to believe' otherwise is on solid foundation, then,

    - either I've missed something important in the wording (I don't think the single phrase "bond payments" is enough to warrant such a conclusion given the context - is there something more that gives you 'reason'?),

    - or there is something about standard appellate procedure I am unaware of (where bonds can be promised but not paid and this is enough to satisfy the judge so as to 'secure the right to appeal,' 'stay the judgment' and vacate the order preventing transfer of WTNY assets),

    - or you have some insider information that is leading you believe otherwise (in which case, you wouldn't need a definitive explanation to cut through the legalese, you'd just know one way or the other).

    Can you elaborate?

    cedars posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:57:19 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 4499 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    AnnOMaly - I apologize! "Reason to believe" was a bit strong. I should have called it more of a hunch based on information I'm receiving. All I'm saying is, I understand there are insurance companies like Travelers who specialize in "posting" bonds on behalf of their clients without actually paying hard cash. They accept property as surety from their clients, but it is more expensive for Watchtower to do it this way than offer property to the court directly as surety themselves.

    If someone can contradict this understanding, I am willing to stand corrected.

    You must admit, it seems odd that Watchtower would have no problems just handing over 17.3 million in cash, but kick up a fuss over a couple of hundred thousand dollars which they will be entitled to receive back if they win, even if they are doubtful of being able to get it. Surely that's Candace's problem to worry about, not Watchtower's?

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:35:58 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2839 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Surely that's Candace's problem to worry about, not Watchtower's?

    Not quite. It's Watchtower's problem too. They don't want to lose any of their cash if it can be avoided. They don't have a hope of recovering that kind of money from Candace.

    All I'm saying is, I understand there are insurance companies like Travelers who specialize in "posting" bonds on behalf of their clients without actually paying hard cash.

    OK, noted. ...

    ... Ooh now look what I've just come across:

    http://www.heylroyster.com/_data/files/Articles%20Chapters/140362%20IDC%20Quarterly%20Elward%20Appeal%20Bonds%20in%20Civl%20Cases.pdf

    Check out p. 3. Of course, this relates to the rules in Illinois, but is it applicable here?

    "Posting The Insurance Policy

    For cases covered by insurance, Rule 305(j) permits the appellant to post the insurance policy as a bond."

    Hmm. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the insurance policy with the $86k premium is being used in lieu of the bond.

    cedars posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:45:40 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 4500 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    AnnOMaly

    Hmm. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the insurance policy with the $86k premium is being used in lieu of the bond.

    Yes, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any actual money has been paid to the court, let alone in the amounts suggested.

    It's easy to read Watchtower's side of the story and assume that's all there is to it, but there's a heavy odour of strategizing surrounding this motion. I believe the premium is just being used as a vehicle to try to lower the amount of costs involved in keeping the bond in place over the course of the proceedings - especially if they drag on (as I'm sure Watchtower hopes they will). One thing's for sure - Candace's team are having none of it.

    If I were Candace, I'd be rather offended at the accusation that I would spend all the premium money and not repay it if it were legally demanded from me. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but what's to stop her just dumping it in a high interest account so she can produce it again in the future if she needs to?

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:29:36 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2840 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    If I were Candace, I'd be rather offended at the accusation that I would spend all the premium money and not repay it if it were legally demanded from me. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but what's to stop her just dumping it in a high interest account so she can produce it again in the future if she needs to?

    I don't follow. How would Candace get her hands on the premium money???

    By the way, Cedars,

    You'll want to check out,

    This helpful article,

    I found on supersedeas.

    (shoulda been a poet)

    cedars posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:05:01 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 4501 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Hi AnnOMaly

    Thanks for sending me that information!

    Re. your question, I was referring to this...

    The WTS argues that using Patterson as surety will benefit the Plaintiff because it is "more that adequate security for the prompt payment of the Amended Judgment" if she prevails on appeal, as well as relieving her of the liability of having to pay back the bond premiums if she doesn't.

    Have I got the wrong end of the stick? How else might Candace have a problem paying back the bond premiums if she doesn't spend them?

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:37:37 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2841 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    LOL, ya doofus! The WTS have to pay Travelers (not Candace!) a premium to secure/insure the bond. If the cash bond remains set at $17.2 million and the WTS wins the appeal and, let's say, the judgment is completely overturned, the $17.2 million reverts back to the WTS. But the WTS is still out of pocket to the tune of $86/170/200 thousand. They are entitled by law to recover the money they were forced to pay out in premiums to Travelers from the losing appellee/plaintiff.

    I know what it was - "pay back" may have given you the impression the premiums were paid to Candace (LOL, the very thought!). I should have expressed it more clearly, perhaps.

    cedars posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:05:08 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 4502 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Thanks AnnOMaly - sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick!

    Cedars

    Justitia Themis posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:20:32 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2238 of 2543
    Joined 2/21/2006

    Here is some information that useful because, 1) it is from an authoritative legal secondary source, 2) it references the relevant California Codes it is addressing which will help those wishing to perform further research. The question I have is whether the property can be used since real property is not one of the “acceptable securities” listed in CCP s 995.710(a), OR if it is allowed, whether it is restricted to California real property. Unfortunately, I am buried in school, and I will not be able to research this for weeks.

    However, please note*, I have not read the latest pleadings, and so I don’t even know if these California Codes are the one upon which the WTS is relying. I am NOT familiar with California law (that’s why I am researching it), and there may be another Code/s that applies. Therefore, if these particular codes are not mentioned in their briefs, this information doesn’t apply.

    In addition, I no longer think 144,001 is an attorney. If s/he were an attorney, he would have understood my post on Cedar’s other thread and would not have emotionally responded that I was trying to “goad” her/him into declaring if she/he is a lawyer. If one posts that ‘X is true,’ one needs to cite to authority. Attorneys never cite to themselves, and if one ever did cite to him or herself, they would have no problem saying that they know ‘X is true’ based on their career, which is all I asked of 144,001. However, attorneys are trained to cite to a legal authority. 144,001 does not do that. S/he merely posts conclusory statements (X is true), and then challenges others to ‘prove him wrong.’ Based on her/his actions, I suspect 144,001 is a paralegal or legal assistant that has some knowledge about California. Nevertheless, paralegals’ information should not be automatically discounted because they do tend to understand the law in which they work.

    ACIVAPP CH. 7-C

    Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs Ch. 7-C

    California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, Jon B. Eisenberg, Ellis J. Horvitz, and Justice Howard B. Wiener (Ret.) Chapter 7. Stays And Supersedeas

    [7:96] Purpose: The security requirement is intended to provide monetary protection to a prevailing respondent: i.e., appellant’s security is essentially the "quid pro quo" for respondent's giving up the right to enforce the judgment. Through a bond or undertaking, a third person (surety) basically promises in writing to pay a sum of money to respondent on appellant's behalf should respondent prevail on appeal and appellant fail to comply with the affirmed judgment or order. "The statute [CCP s 917.1] is clearly designed to protect the judgment won in the trial court from becoming uncollectible while the judgment is subject to appellate review ... A successful litigant will have an assured source of funds to meet the amount of the money judgment, costs and postjudgment interest after postponing enjoyment of a trial court victory." [Grant v. Super.Ct. (Bank of America) (1990) 225 CA3d 929, 934, 275 CR 564, 568; Lewin v. Anselmo (1997) 56 CA4th 694, 700, 65 CR2d 682, 686; see also City of Lodi v. Randtron (2004) 118 CA4th 337, 362-363, 13 CR3d 107, 124]

    (b) [7:113] Insurer's conditions to furnishing bond or undertaking: Admitted surety insurers charge a fee (or "premium") for a bond or undertaking, and also require appellant to supply them with some form of security. Depending on the size of the bond or undertaking and the type of appellant (e.g., an individual or a major corporation), the surety's annual premium can be as low as .25% or as high as 1% (or more) of the bonded amount. [See Rossa v. D.L. Falk Const., Inc. (2012) 53 C4th 387, 389, 394, 135 CR3d 329, 331, 335 (citing text)]

    [7:116] Deposit in Lieu of Bond or Undertaking: A stay dependent upon giving a bond or undertaking can alternatively be secured by depositing cash or certain negotiable securities with the trial court. [CCP s 995.710; 7:191 ff.] This approach avoids the cost of obtaining security from an admitted surety insurer. A deposit given in lieu of a bond "has the same force and effect, is treated the same, and is subject to the same conditions, liability, and statutory provisions, including provisions for increase and decrease of amount, as the bond." [CCP s 995.730]

    a. [7:117] Amount of deposit: The amount of the deposit (in cash or acceptable securities, below) must at least equal the amount that would be required of a bond or undertaking from an admitted surety insurer. (In the case of bearer bonds or notes, their market value is determinative; see P 7:194 ff.) [CCPs 995.710(b)]

    b. [7:118] Acceptable securities: Appellant's deposit may be made, in whole or in part, by any of the following types of securities (CCP s 995.710(a)):

    * Federal or California bearer bonds or notes (CCP s 995.710(a)(2) (see P 7:118.1));

    * Certificates of deposit (not exceeding the federally insured amount) made payable to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(3));

    * Savings accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(4));

    * Savings and loan association investment certificates or share accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(5)); and/or

    * Credit union certificates for funds or share accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(6)).

    [7:134] Trial court discretion to order stay without undertaking to protect set-off (CCP s 918.5): If the judgment debtor (appellant) has another action pending on a disputed claim against the judgment creditor (respondent), the trial court has discretion to stay the appealed judgment or order without a bond or undertaking in order to protect the potential set-off. [CCP s 918.5; Airfloor Co. of Calif., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1979) 97 CA3d 739, 741, 158 CR 856, 857]

    In exercising its discretion under s 918.5, the court must consider:

    * The likelihood the judgment debtor will prevail in the other action;

    * The amount of the judgment creditor's judgment as compared to the amount of the judgment debtor's probable recovery in the other action; and

    * The judgment creditor's financial ability to satisfy the judgment if a judgment is rendered against him or her in the other action. [CCP s 918.5(b)(1)-(3)

    7:191] Procedure for Deposit in Lieu of Bond or Undertaking: Courts are permitted to prescribe their own terms and conditions for a deposit of cash or negotiable securities in lieu of a bond or undertaking on appeal (P 7:116 ff.). [CCP s 995.710(d)] Hence, the applicable procedure is likely to vary from county to county. The general rules below apply in all cases; but counsel should contact the trial court clerk for specific local procedures.

    [7:192] Amount of deposit: The amount of the deposit must at least equal the amount that would be required of a bond or undertaking from an admitted urety insurer. [CCP s 995.710(b)]

    [7:193] Cash or certain securities: The deposit may be made in cash or in statutorily-specified securities. [See CCP s 995.710(a); and P 7:118 ff

    Tylinbrando posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:09:35 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 211 of 728
    Joined 4/5/2012

    AnnoMaly stated:

    The WTS argues that using Patterson as surety will benefit the Plaintiff because it is "more that adequate security for the prompt payment of the Amended Judgment" if she prevails on appeal, as well as relieving her of the liability of having to pay back the bond premiums if she doesn't

    Then to clarify if it is Candace with liability to pay back the bond stated:

    The WTS have to pay Travelers (not Candace!) a premium to secure/insure the bond. If the cash bond remains set at $17.2 million and the WTS wins the appeal and, let's say, the judgment is completely overturned, the $17.2 million reverts back to the WTS. But the WTS is still out of pocket to the tune of $86/170/200 thousand. They are entitled by law to recover the money they were forced to pay out in premiums to Travelers from the losing appellee/plaintiff.

    Confusing to say the least. If Watchtower is paying Travelers, why would they be concerned about getting their money back if they win their appeal? Candace wont have access to the money, therefore she can't spend it. Why is Watchtower going through the trouble of substituting Patterson as a bond then the cash. It appears they are protected from losing the cash bond no matter what. Therefore what is the reason behind their motion? Are they trying to protect the interest on the cash bond they will lose if it is spent out?

    F AnnOMaly posted Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:10:14 GMT(10/28/2012)

    Post 2843 of 4405
    Joined 8/11/2003

    The basic principle:

    The appeal bond is to ensure the judgment money is put aside safe while the appeal process goes through. The appellants (WTS) have to arrange the bond so that they can readily pay the judgment if they lose the appeal. Neither side can touch the money bonded until a decision on the appeal is made. A bond is procured through an intermediary agent - in this case, Travelers. The agent requires a premium for doing this service which is calculated on the amount bonded.

    If the WTS loses the appeal, the judgment money goes to Candace. If the WTS wins and manages to overturn the judgment, the money in the bond is returned to them. However, if the WTS wins the appeal and overturns the judgment, Candace has to 'compensate' the WTS for the premiums paid to Travelers for securing the bond. At worst, that could be up to $200,000 in total. Candace doesn't have that kind of money (she's lost the appeal, right? - she has nothing). So the WTS will be out of pocket in the order of $200,000 at worst.

    The WTS is trying to avoid that loss. If they could substitute property as surety for the judgment instead of having a cash bond with its sky-high premiums, they don't lose the premium money if they win the appeal, and Candace would be let off the hook of being liable for 'compensating' them for those premiums. The Patterson property is worth way more than the bond and its premiums, the WTS argue, so should be more than adequate as a substitution for them.

    Make any more sense, Tylin?

      Close

      Confirm ...