Bailey v. Holliday

I fully concur with the Majority's determination that Indiana Code section 32-28-3-11 is only satisfied when the surety matches the projected undertaking. Op. at 10. However, I respectfully write sepa*12rately to disagree with the Majority's conclusion that depositing money with the clerk of the court constitutes a surety. Op. at 11.

I. A Surety Must Match the Undertaking

Like the Majority, I believe an "undertaking with surety" is a unitary object of the verb "file" in Indiana Code section 32-28-3-11(b)'s costs and attorneys fees requirement. If a surety and an undertaking were two separate…