Re URCP62(d): I believe the previous amendments to this rule are troublesome. Among other difficult aspects, it places an additional and onerous burden on the appellee to somehow discover (after judgment has been taken and discovery is closed) - and sufficiently establish for the court - whether an appellant is "dissipating assets outside the course of normal business to avoid payment for a judgment." The statutorily reduced amount of the security bond is also troublesome given the fact that judgment has already been rendered. In my opinion, the amendments unfairly diminish the chances of successful collection if the appeal is unsuccessful (which is more likely than not to be the case.