• Sat. Jul 2nd, 2022

Do I Have To Use A Bail Bondsman To Post Bail?


May 25, 2020

general bail bondsman

New Bail Bond Law In Connecticut Regarding Bail Bond Fees

The Court held that by showing in the trial court docket and requesting an extension of time to apprehend the defendant, the surety waived any objection to the timing or type of service of process in the case. The Court refused to consider the surety’s argument that the additional costs and second bond exonerated the first bond because the argument was not raised within the trial courtroom. Finally, the Court discovered no abuse of discretion within the trial court docket’s giving the surety credit score for less than part of the quantity it claimed to have expended in trying to find the defendant. First Arkansas Bail Bonds v. State, 2008 WL (Ark.App. May 14, 2008) held that forfeiture of a bail bond may be completed in the defendant’s felony proceeding without the State having to file a separate civil motion.

Therefore, the surety was limited to the grounds which existed previous to the expiration (that there was confusion getting discover to the actual bail agent whose name didn’t seem on the bond). The Court of Appeals found the trial court docket was inside its discretion in rejecting this grounds.

After the third arrest the surety on the bonds for arrests number one and 2 surrendered the defendant arguing that its threat had been increased by the third arrest and substantial bond posted by another firm. The court docket ordered return of the premiums for bonds 1 and a pair of pro rated for the time the defendant was free on the bonds (primarily based on a hypothetical one 12 months time period). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court docket did not abuse its discretion in ordering return of premium or in arriving at an quantity to be returned. The defendant was apprehended, based on data provided by the bail agent, 9 days after the 185 day interval expired and whereas the extension motion was pending. The court of appeals affirmed and held that filing a motion to increase the 185 day interval doesn’t mechanically extend it and that nothing that occurs after the 185 day period expires can represent good trigger to extend it.

In Arvis Harper Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 208 S.W.3d 809 (Ark. App. 2005) the defendant failed to seem and a listening to was set for the bondsman to indicate trigger why a judgment of bond forfeiture shouldn’t be entered. Prior to the show cause hearing, the bondsman recovered the defendant and turned him over to the Sheriff, which ought to have foreclosed entry of judgment. However, the bondsman didn’t seem at the present trigger hearing or provide the clerk, the court, or the prosecutor with the receipt displaying he had surrendered the defendant. The courtroom, not being knowledgeable otherwise, entered a judgment of forfeiture. No attraction was taken, however greater than ninety days later the bondsman moved to set aside the judgment, and the trial courtroom denied the movement.

In First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 2007 WL (Ark.App. September 26, 2007) the defendant offered two bonds for the defendant. The second bond was posted after extra costs had been added to the case. The defendant failed to seem, and the trial courtroom forfeited each bonds. The surety appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed forfeiture of both bonds.