A. Melvin Sokolsky

The respondent in an appeal brought a motion for security for costs.

The appellant, an impecunious corporation, had originally brought a motion in bankruptcy proceedings claiming its pre-bankruptcy judgment against the respondent survived his discharge.

The court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to security for costs on appeal in bankruptcy matters.

The court found that the appellant's original motion was sufficiently analogous to an action to be treated as a discrete proceeding under rule 56.01, entitling the respondent to security for costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judgment in an employment-related unjust enrichment dispute arising from extra hours worked in exchange for equivalent time off.

The court held that there was a juristic reason for the respondent's retention of the benefit because the parties' contract contemplated compensation through equivalent time off.

Since the appellant voluntarily placed himself beyond the point of enforcing that contractual entitlement, he could not establish the absence of juristic reason.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.