In Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court, 160 Ariz. 514, 517, 774 P.2d 818 (App. 1989) the Court stated it would be error for a trial court to fix a supersedeas bond in an amount substantially less than the judgment. 160 Ariz. at 515, 774 P.2d at 819. Normally, that is the case: a court should require a judgment debtor to post a supersedeas bond in the amount required under Rule 7(a)(2). But, as we also recognized in Bruce Church, a court has discretion to fix alternate security that protects the judgment creditor during the pendency of the appeal. Id. at 517, 774 P.2d at 821. That discretion is properly exercised when the court is presented with extraordinary facts and circumstances. Id. Bruce Church holds that "the rule and the inherent discretion and power of the trial court allow for flexibility in the determination of the nature and extent of the security required to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal." Id. But it goes on: "There must be an objective demonstration that the judgment debtor has the financial strength to proficiently respond to a money judgment and that the same financial strength and ability to respond will remain undiluted during appeal." Id.