Advisory Commission Comments to Rules 62.01-62.09

Advisory Commission Comments

The statutory provisions for immediate issuance of execution are contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-1-206, et seq. These statutes are not affected by the provisions of this Rule.

Rule 62.01 provides that in certain circumstances an interlocutory or final judgment is not stayed after entry. These are injunction and receivership actions, and actions that remove a public officer, or that award, change, or otherwise affect the custody of a minor child. The statutory provision for immediate execution contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-1-206(a) is also not affected by the automatic stay provision of this rule. In addition, Rule 62.03 provides that even after an appeal is taken the trial court does not lose its authority to grant any additional or modified relief during the pendency of an appeal in actions specified in Rule 62.01 or in actions for alimony or child support. Finally, Rule 62.04 makes clear that except as otherwise provided in Rule 62.01, the mere taking of an appeal does not operate to stay execution upon a judgment. Instead, a stay may be obtained only by giving a bond, the conditions of which are specified in Rule 62.05. The costs on appeal that must be included in the bond are set forth in Rule 40(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. If a party is unable to supply any security, the party may be exempted from the bond provisions. Similarly persons who cannot provide security in the full amount specified in Rule 62.05 may make a motion to have the amount of security reduced. Summary review of the trial court’s determination under this rule may be had in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. [1979.]

62.05: The amended language makes it clear that a bond to secure the amount of the judgment could be modified where the judgment debtor has plentiful assets or adequate insurance coverage, as well as where the judgment debtor is financially embarrassed but not a “poor person.” The comment to the 1979 amendments led to a contrary implication: “Similarly persons who cannot provide security in the full amount specified in Rule 62.05 may make a motion to have the amount of security reduced.” [1984.]

62.06: There are instances where security from a government is not necessary, and the revision is drafted to accommodate those situations, at the same time preserving the victorious litigant’s realization of an excess judgment against an individual officer. This revision does not affect the judge’s discretion under T.R.C.P. 62.05. [1986.] 

Advisory Commission Comment [2000]

The amendment of Rule 62.02 conforms the language to renumbered paragraphs in Rule 59.

Advisory Commission Comment [2003]

Rule 62.05(3) is a procedure needed to prevent abuse when a judgment creditor unnecessarily files a judgment lien despite the judgment being fully bonded. Some trial judges have heretofore been sympathetic with a judgment debtor’s plight but found no vehicle for relief.

Advisory Commission Comment [2011]

The amendment of Rule 62.02 corrects an erroneous cross-reference, changing “59.02” to “59.07.”

Advisory Commission Comment [2013]

The rule was amended to replace the term “poor person” with the term “indigent person.”  The amendment was not intended to change the meaning or application of the rule.

Advisory Commission Comment [2013]

The rule was amended to replace the term “poor person” with the term “indigent person.”  The amendment was not intended to change the meaning or application of the rule.