United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY
EXECUTION OF ORDER [ECF NOS. 113, 114]
Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge.
Espiritu stopped making payments on her home mortgage back in
2013, and the defendants foreclosed on the property. In 2015,
Espirirtu's home was sold at a public auction to a third
party. But Espiritu continued to live there. She then brought
this case challenging the foreclosure.
recently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants
on all of Espiritu's claims.Espiritu has appealed and now
asks that I stay judgment in this case until the appellate
court renders its decision. Espiritu points out that unless
the judgment is stayed, the defendants will be able to oust
her from the house, which will irreparably harm her.
Nevada, real property is considered “unique” and
the loss of real property “generally results in
irreparable harm.” Although I remain unmoved by
Espiritu's arguments that my prior order was wrong,
given the injuries involved in disposing of real property, I
do find that a stay is warranted here.
stay execution of judgment, a supersedeas bond is typically
required.” “The posting of a bond protects the
prevailing plaintiff from the risk of a later uncollectible
judgment and compensates him for delay in the entry of the
requests a $2, 000 bond, which she contends will cover the
costs of appeal. But a judgment bond is meant to do more than
that: it protects the prevailing party's interests,
including damages flowing from the delay caused by the stay.
As long as the judgment is stayed, the defendants are
deprived of their ongoing interest in this house. They are
unable to rent the property, much less sell it. Being unable
to sell or rent real property for the months or years that
this case remains on appeal will cause real damage to the
defendants. There is also no guarantee (and Espiritu offers
none) that no harm will come to the property during this
defendants request a much larger bond: $277, 000, the
appraised value of the home. But the defendants have not
established that this number makes sense either. There is no
indication that they will be unable to collect the home if
the appeal comes out in their favor. They have thus not shown
that they are at risk of losing the entire value of the
that the proper bond amount is a fair market rent of the
property during the pendency of appeal. I thus grant the
stay subject to Espiritu's posting of a bond in the
amount of $36, 000. This number reflects my estimation that
this case is likely to remain on appeal for 18 months and
that a reasonable monthly rent of a home in this area is $2,
000, based on my generalized knowledge of home and rental
values in this community
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
plaintiffs motion for a stay [ECF Nos. 113] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to deposit $38, 000 by close of business
on July 10, 2017 for this stay to be effective.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to shorten time [ECF
Nos. 114] is DENIED as moot.
 ECF No. 111.
Dixon v. Thatcher, 742 P.2d
1029, 1030 (Nev. ...