If a judgment in an ejectment case orders eviction and attorney’s fees, is posting a supersedeas bond necessary to stay immediate execution?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. Yes, but only if rents and damages are also awarded
• D. Yes, if the opposing party demands it

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is how stays of judgment work when the relief is possession of land rather than purely monetary relief. A supersedeas bond is typically required to stay the enforcement of a judgment while an appeal is pending, because it secures payment of costs and damages if the appeal fails. But in an ejectment case the main remedy granted by the judgment is eviction and restoration of possession. The eviction portion is not a monetary enforcement in the same way as a money judgment, and the court can stay the execution of the possession order without a supersedeas bond in this particular context. In other words, the relief at issue is possession, not simply a money damage, so posting a bond isn’t strictly necessary to prevent immediate eviction while appealing (even if attorney’s fees are also awarded).

So, staying eviction pending appeal does not hinge on posting a supersedeas bond in this scenario. The other options imply a blanket or conditional requirement that doesn’t align with the possession-focused nature of ejectment judgments.