Background
Austin Bridge and Road, L.P. sought supervisory review of a ruling from the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. The trial court’s July 28, 2026 judgment ordered Austin Bridge to furnish a supplemental suspensive-appeal bond of $6,207,862.09.
The supplemental security was intended to account for additional interest that accrued after Austin Bridge furnished its original appeal security. The issue was whether the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction over an appeal bond permitted it to increase a bond that had previously been sufficient solely because more interest had accrued.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal granted the writ and reversed the July 28, 2026 judgment. It held that although Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2088(A)(5) gives a trial court continuing jurisdiction over an appeal bond, that authority does not permit the court to increase a previously sufficient bond solely to cover interest accruing after the security was furnished.
The court explained that, under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 2124(B)(1) and 2124(D), security for a money judgment includes interest only through the date the security is furnished. Judge Balfour concurred. Judge Edwards dissented and would have denied the writ.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court retains continuing jurisdiction over an appeal bond under article 2088(A)(5).
- That jurisdiction does not authorize increasing an otherwise sufficient bond solely for interest accruing after the bond was furnished.
- Security for a money judgment includes interest through the date the security is furnished.
Why It Matters
The ruling limits when Louisiana trial courts may require additional security during a suspensive appeal. Later-accruing interest, standing alone, does not justify supplementing a bond that was sufficient when furnished.
For parties bonding money judgments, the decision identifies the date security is furnished as the cutoff for calculating the interest component of the required security.