Any person in interest wishing to test the sufficiency, solvency of the surety, or validity of a bond furnished as security in a judicial proceeding shall rule the party furnishing the bond into the trial court in which the proceeding was brought to show cause why the bond should not be decreed insufficient or invalid, and why the order, judgment, writ, mandate, or process conditioned on the furnishing of security should not be set aside or dissolved. If the bond is sought to be held invalid on the ground of the insolvency of a surety other than a surety company licensed to do business in this state, the party furnishing the bond shall prove the solvency of the surety on the trial of the rule.
Art. 5123.Testing Sufficiency and Validity of Bond
Book IX. Miscellaneous Provisions and Definitions · Title I. Miscellaneous Provisions · Chapter 3. Bonds In Judicial Proceedings · Amendment history unavailable · Last verified July 30, 2026
In one sentenceArticle 5123 lets any interested person challenge a bond's sufficiency, the surety's solvency, or the bond's validity by ruling the party who furnished it into the trial court to show cause, and places the burden of proving the surety's solvency on that party when solvency is the ground for attack.
Full Text of Art. 5123
Plain-English Summary
Furnishing a bond does not close off scrutiny of it. Article 5123 gives any interested person a direct procedural tool to test whether a bond furnished as security holds up: a rule to show cause, filed in the trial court where the proceeding began, directed at the party who furnished the bond.
The rule calls on that party to explain why the bond should not be decreed insufficient or invalid, and why the order, judgment, writ, mandate, or process the bond secured should not be set aside or dissolved as a result. This lets a party who doubts the bond's worth put that question squarely before the court rather than waiting to find out only if and when the security is called upon.
When the challenge rests on the insolvency of a surety who is not a company licensed to do business in Louisiana, Article 5123 shifts the burden onto the party who furnished the bond: that party must prove the surety's solvency at the trial of the rule. Placing that burden on the furnishing party makes sense, since that party chose the surety and has the readiest access to proof of the surety's financial standing.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does someone challenge the sufficiency of a bond furnished in a Louisiana lawsuit?
By ruling the party who furnished the bond into the trial court to show cause why the bond should not be decreed insufficient or invalid, under Article 5123.
Who has to prove a surety is solvent when a bond is challenged on that ground?
The party who furnished the bond, under Article 5123, at least where the surety is not a company licensed to do business in Louisiana.
What can happen to a judgment or writ if the bond behind it is found insufficient?
Article 5123 lets the court set aside or dissolve the order, judgment, writ, mandate, or process the bond secured, though Article 5125 requires giving the party a chance to cure the defect first.
Do licensed surety companies face the same solvency-proof burden as individual sureties?
No. Article 5123's solvency-proof requirement applies where the challenge targets a surety other than a company licensed to do business in Louisiana.
Source & verification. Article text is reproduced verbatim from
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (legis.la.gov). Enacted by the Louisiana Legislature.
Last verified July 30, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: challenging a bond's sufficiency LouisianaArticle 5123 Louisianarule to show cause bond Louisianatesting validity of a surety bondproving solvency of surety Louisiana civil procedure