Background
A jury awarded Raul Velazquez Guzman a $20 million personal-injury judgment against Nathan Wigle. To stay enforcement during appeal, Wigle ordinarily faced a bond exceeding $30 million. He asked for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240, reporting about $1.75 million in assets and an inability to secure the required undertaking.
After receiving information from a bonding company about available bond levels and their financial demands, the trial court reduced the bond to $1.25 million. Guzman sought writ relief, arguing a person with substantial assets cannot be “indigent” and that Wigle’s showing was legally insufficient.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District denied the writ. “Indigent” has no rigid dollar threshold under section 995.240 and requires a practical comparison between the principal’s resources and the bond actually required. A court may find inability to furnish a multimillion-dollar bond even where the appellant owns meaningful assets.
Wigle’s sworn disclosure of assets, coupled with information obtained from a surety about the costs and collateral required at different bond amounts, was competent evidence. The statute did not require the more categorical rule urged by Guzman, and the challenger did not otherwise show the $1.25 million figure was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Indigency for bond-waiver purposes is relative to the size and practical availability of the required undertaking.
- A detailed sworn financial declaration can constitute competent evidence.
- The applicant should contact sureties and document unsuccessful efforts, premiums, collateral demands, and feasible bond levels.
- A challenge should address both legal eligibility and why the amount selected was an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
Large judgments do not guarantee that the prevailing plaintiff can immediately enforce while an appeal proceeds. Judgment creditors should scrutinize the applicant’s disclosures and surety evidence, while appellants should build a concrete record showing why ordinary bonding is unavailable rather than relying on a bare assertion.
The ruling gives trial courts flexibility to balance appellate access against security for the judgment.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket