Colorado § 13-16-125 - Limit on supersedeas bond.

§ 13-16-125. Limit on supersedeas bond.

(1) In any civil action brought under any legal theory, the amount of a supersedeas bond necessary to stay execution of a judgment granting legal, equitable, or any other relief during the entire course of all appeals or discretionary reviews of the judgment by all appellate courts shall be set in accordance with applicable law; except that the total amount of the supersedeas bonds that are required collectively of all appellants during the appeal of a civil action may not exceed twenty-five million dollars in the aggregate, regardless of the amount of the judgment that is appealed.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, if an appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an appellant who has posted a supersedeas bond is intentionally dissipating or diverting assets outside the ordinary course of its business for the purpose of avoiding payment of the judgment, a court may enter orders that are necessary to protect the appellee or that require the appellant to post a supersedeas bond in an amount up to and including the total amount of the judgment that is appealed.

Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1871, § 1, effective May 20.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Bonds in Colorado Courts: A Primer for Practitioners", see 34 Colo. Law. 59 (Mar. 2005). For article, "How (Not) to Mess Up an Appeal", see 54 Colo. Law. 22 (Nov. 2025).

The twenty-five million dollar supersedeas bond cap is constitutional because setting the amount of a supersedeas bond cap is a substantive matter of public policy. Defendant appealed the trial court decision awarding plaintiff $280 million. To stay execution of the judgment while defendant appealed, defendant filed a twenty-five million dollar bond with the trial court. Plaintiff asserted that C.R.C.P. 121 required defendant to post a bond of 125 percent of the judgment and that the statutory twenty-five million dollar cap conflicts with the court rule and is a procedural matter that the judiciary controls. The statute and rule do not conflict and setting a supersedeas bond cap is a matter of public policy, which makes it a substantive matter for the legislature to determine. Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water Techs., 2023 CO 59, 546 P.3d 1140.