On December 22, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit defined, in Tennille v. Western Union Co., what can constitute a "cost on appeal" for purposes of an appeal bond under FRAP 7 (No. 13–1378, (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014). The court held that costs not authorized by rule or statute, such as the cost of notifying class members of a merits appeal, may not be included in the amount of the bond.

Several plaintiffs commenced an action against Western Union, challenging the company's practice of failing to notify a customer when a wire transfer has failed and retaining the funds until they reverted to the relevant state. The plaintiffs settled with Western Union after several years of litigation. After the settlement was reached, the district court preliminarily certified a class of more than one million customers who experienced failed wire transfers. Several class members objected, but the district court overruled all objections, certified the class, approved the settlement and entered final judgment. The objectors filed an appeal, contesting the district court's denial of their objections. The plaintiffs requested that the district court require the objectors to post an appeal bond in the amount of $1,007,294 as a condition of pursuing their appeals, and the district court granted their request. The objectors appealed the ruling, but the plaintiffs argued that the Tenth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the objectors' appeals.

The Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear the objectors' appeals because the order requiring the bond:

The bond imposed by the district court covered three categories of costs:

A bond under FRAP 7 must be sufficient to ensure that, if the appeal is unsuccessful, the appellant can pay the costs on appeal incurred by his opponent. As this was a matter of first impression in the Tenth Circuit, the court looked for guidance from other circuit courts to determine what costs should be included as "costs on appeal." The Tenth Circuit found that other courts have consistently held that "costs on appeal" are the costs that a successful appellate litigant can recover pursuant to a specific rule or statute. Because there is no rule or statute that would allow the plaintiffs to recover the cost of notifying the class members of the merits appeals or to recover the cost of maintaining the class settlement funding pending the appeals, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court erroneously imposed an appeal bond that covered those costs. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that "costs on appeal" should be interpreted more broadly in class action cases, where an objector can delay implementation of a large settlement. The court found no justification in the appellate rules for different treatment in the class action context. Moreover, the court held that FRAP 7 appeal bonds are not intended to cover damages caused by a delay resulting from an appeal.

The Tenth Circuit also reduced the portion of the appeal bond relating to costs for printing, copying and preparing the appellate record. The district court had included $25,000 in the bond to cover these expenses; however, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate why that amount was necessary in this case. The Tenth Circuit concluded that a $5,000 bond, the cost estimate conceded by the objector, would be more appropriate. Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that an appeal bond of $5,000 would not deprive an objector of due process because the objector did not establish that she would be unable to post the bond, only that posting a bond in that amount would be difficult.