She didn’t make any extra premium funds, and the bail agent surrendered the defendant two months after the bond was posted. The defendant had not violated any terms of launch, however the bail agent claimed he had given misinformation in acquiring the bond. The bail agent asserted that the stability of the premium was due, and the court ordered him to indicate cause why the premium should not be refunded underneath Cal. The trial courtroom held that there was no good trigger for the give up, reduced the premium to $four,500 and decreased the lien on the mother’s property to $2,400 (the unpaid stability of the $four,500).
Several months later, the courtroom held a listening to on the state’s utility for a rule to point out cause why the bond should not be forfeited. The defendant had fled to Mexico, but the surety situated him there and brought him to the U.S. border. Customs, they referred to as the native police who didn’t locate the warrant and didn’t arrest the defendant. The court held that the bond was correctly forfeited because forfeiture is predicated on the defendant’s actions, not the surety’s, and right here the defendant willfully fled to Mexico.
Therefore, the courtroom did not have jurisdiction to grant it, and summary judgment had to be entered within 90 days of the expiration of the unique 180 day interval (on this case 185 days as a result of notice was mailed). The abstract judgment was entered within 90 days of the tip of the erroneously extended interval however not within ninety days of the expiration of the original period, therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the abstract judgment. In re Forfeiture in the Amount of $10,000, 2007 WL (Ariz.App. July 10, 2007) affirmed the trial court docket’s train of its discretion not to remit any portion of a bond forfeiture. The defendant failed to appear and the courtroom issued a bench warrant.
On the problem of remitting all or any part of the forfeiture, the trial courtroom has discretion. The trial courtroom thought of the surety’s unsuccessful efforts to return the defendant to custody and the other components required, and thus didn’t abuse its discretion in not remitting any of the forfeiture. In United States v. Ahmed, 2008 WL (S.D.N.Y. January 28, 2008) the defendant pled guilty in 1993 and was sentenced but fled to Ghana before surrendering to begin her sentence. The Government moved to forfeit the bond secured by three personal sureties. The Government, nonetheless, did nothing to collect on the forfeiture till 2007.
The Court of Appeals held that the bail agent did not reveal any abuse of discretion by the trial court docket and affirmed the order. Under the California statutory scheme, if the defendant appears, surrenders or is arrested within 180 days from notice of forfeiture (185 days if notice is mailed), the forfeiture is vacated and the bond exonerated. The 180 day period could be prolonged only if the request is made previous to expiration of the period. If the one hundred eighty day interval expires, the courtroom loses jurisdiction to grant an extension and should enter summary judgment towards the surety within 90 days of the expiration. The bail agent’s request to extend the one hundred eighty day interval was granted, but it had been made too late.