Fla. R. App. P. 9.310
STAY PENDING REVIEW
Text — October 1, 2026 edition
(a) Application in Lower Tribunal. Except as provided by general law and in subdivision (b) of this rule, a party seeking to stay a final or nonfinal order pending review first must file a motion in the lower tribunal, which has continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief. A stay pending review may be conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or both.
(b) Exceptions; Automatic Stay.
(1) Money Judgments. If the order is a judgment solely for the payment of money, a party may obtain an automatic stay of execution pending review, without the necessity of a motion or order, by posting a good and sufficient bond equal to the amount of the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest in effect on the date the judgment is filed. Multiple parties having common liability may file a single bond satisfying the above criteria.
(2) Public Bodies; Public Officers. The timely filing of a notice will automatically operate as a stay pending review, except in criminal cases, in administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, or as otherwise provided by chapter 120, Florida Statutes, when the state, any public officer in an official capacity, board, commission, or other public body seeks review; provided that an automatic stay will exist for 48 hours after the filing of the notice of appeal for public records and public meeting cases. On motion, the lower tribunal or the court may extend a stay, impose any lawful conditions, or vacate the stay.
(c) Bond.
(1) Defined. A good and sufficient bond is a bond with a principal and a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, or cash deposited in the clerk of the lower tribunal’s office. The lower tribunal will have continuing jurisdiction to determine the actual sufficiency of any bond.
(2) Conditions. The conditions of a bond must include a condition to pay or comply with the order in full, including costs; interest, fees, and damages for delay, use, detention, and depreciation of property, if the review is dismissed or order affirmed; and may include other conditions as may be required by the lower tribunal.
(d) Judgment Against a Surety. A surety on a bond conditioning a stay submits to the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal and the court. The liability of the surety on the bond may be enforced by the lower tribunal or the court, after motion and notice, without the necessity of an independent action.
(e) Duration. A stay entered by a lower tribunal will remain in effect during the pendency of all review proceedings in Florida courts until a mandate issues, or unless otherwise modified or vacated.
(f) Review. A party may seek review of a lower tribunal’s order entered under this rule by filing a motion in the court. The motion must be filed as a separate document.
Notes and commentary — not rule text
Committee Notes
1977 Amendment. This rule replaces former rules 5.1 through 5.12. It implements the Administrative Procedure Act, section 120.68(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976). Subdivision (a) provides for obtaining a stay pending review by filing a motion in the lower tribunal, and clarifies the authority of the lower tribunal to increase or decrease the bond or deal with other conditions of the stay, even though the case is pending before the court. Exceptions are provided in subdivision (b). The rule preserves any statutory right to a stay. The court has plenary power to alter any requirements imposed by the lower tribunal. A party desiring exercise of the court’s power may seek review by motion under subdivision (f) of this rule. Subdivision (b)(1) replaces former rule 5.7. It establishes a fixed formula for determining the amount of the bond if there is a judgment solely for money. This formula shall be automatically accepted by the clerk. If an insurance company is a party to an action with its insured, and the judgment exceeds the insurance company’s limits of liability, the rule permits the insurance company to supersede by posting a bond in the amount of its limits of liability, plus 15 percent. For the insured co-defendant to obtain a stay, bond must be posted for the portion of the judgment entered against the insured co-defendant plus 15 percent. The 15 percent figure was chosen as a reasonable estimate of 2 years’ interest and costs, it being very likely that the stay would remain in effect for over 1 year. Subdivision (b)(2) replaces former rule 5.12. It provides for an automatic stay without bond as soon as a notice invoking jurisdiction is filed by the state or any other public body, other than in criminal cases, which are covered by rule 9.140(c)(3), but the lower tribunal may vacate the stay or require a bond. This rule supersedes Lewis v. Career Service Commission, 332 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Subdivision (c) retains the substance of former rule 5.6, and states the mandatory conditions of the bond. Subdivision (d) retains the substance of former rule 5.11, with an additional provision for entry of judgment by the court so that if the lower tribunal is an agency, resort to an independent action is unnecessary. Subdivision (e) is new and is intended to permit a stay for which a single bond premium has been paid to remain effective during all review proceedings. The stay is vacated by issuance of mandate or an order vacating it. There are no automatic stays of mandate under these rules, except for the state or a public body under subdivision (b)(2) of this rule, or if a stay as of right is guaranteed by statute. See, e.g., § 120.68(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976). This rule interacts with rule 9.340, however, so that a party has 15 days between rendition of the court’s decision and issuance of mandate (unless issuance of mandate is expedited) to move for a stay of mandate pending review. If such motion is granted, any stay and bond previously in effect continues, except to the extent of any modifications, by operation of this rule. If circumstances arise requiring alteration of the terms of the stay, the party asserting the need for such change should apply by motion for the appropriate order. Subdivision (f) provides for review of orders regarding stays pending appeal by motion in the court. Although the normal and preferred procedure is for the parties to seek the stay in the lower court, this rule is not intended to limit the constitutional power of the court to issue stay orders after its jurisdiction has been invoked. It is intended that if review of the decision of a Florida court is sought in the United States Supreme Court, a party may move for a stay of mandate, but subdivision (e) does not apply in such cases.
Source of truth
- Edition
- October 1, 2026 edition
- Official file
- https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2026/10/Appellate-Court-Rules-10-01-26.pdf (PDF pages 175–179)
- Text hash
- sha256 de4fc48af5d4957cd2f57b5675e93e4034a48ebd8470ab68e7334be184226453
- Composed by
- compose_book.py 2026-10-03: pypdfium2 primary, PyMuPDF check, PDF bookmarks as the inventory
This rule cites
Provisions in this library that the text above cites, as it prints each citation. A range cited as “ss. 61.13-61.16” links its first and last provisions.
The Florida Statutes
Cited by 5 provisions
Provisions in this library whose text cites Fla. R. App. P. 9.310. Each shows the citation as that text prints it.
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Procedural information only. Not legal advice and not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Confirm the current text with the official publisher before relying on it.