How Pretrial Release Practices Affect Bail Bonds
The trial court docket thought that the surety acted promptly after the ultimate forfeiture however that it didn’t do much beforehand and that it may have requested an extension of time. The court noted that the premium for the $20,000 bond would have been $2,000, mentioned treble damages, and remitted all however $6,000 of the forfeiture.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the details and held that the trial court had discretion in figuring out the extent of any reduction granted to the surety and that it had not abused its discretion on this case. The Court affirmed the judgment remitting solely $14,000 of the $20,000 bond. In Evans v. City of Etowah, 2007 WL (E.D.Tenn. April 17, 2007) the mother of the absconding defendant was at residence when the employees of the bail agent, assisted by the City police, arrived to recuperate her son.
The Court of Appeals held that the surety was entitled to return of the forfeited amount as a result of the bond was posted in the General Sessions court and the Circuit Court proceeding was a new action not a transfer of the General Sessions case. The Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to forfeit the bond, and its judgment of forfeiture was void. Only the General Sessions court may forfeit the bond, and it had not carried out so when the defendant appeared and pled responsible. This disposition of the charges against him operated to discharge his surety.
She ended up under arrest herself, and sued everyone involved for a wide range of alleged causes including violation of federal statutes, constitutional rights and state regulation tort claims. In State v. Bradley, 2005 WL (Tenn. Crim. App. May 5, 2005) the defendant was charged in General Sessions courtroom with several site visitors offenses and launched on $10,000 bond. He failed to look and a conditional judgment was entered to forfeit the bond. He was later indicted by a grand jury for a similar offenses and the Circuit Court forfeited the bond. The surety paid the forfeiture, but ultimately positioned the defendant in jail in one other state.
In Surety Administrators, Inc. v. Samara, 2006 WL (E.D.Pa. April 6, 2006) an assignee of Capital Bonding’s claims sued a subagent for allegedly unpaid bond premiums and fees primarily based on unaccounted for powers of lawyer. The court examined the varied claims and counterclaims between Capital Bonding and the subagent, and held that there were disputed issues of proven fact that precluded summary judgment.
The surety didn’t request an extension of time, and the court entered a ultimate forfeiture. Nevertheless, the surety recovered the defendant shortly afterwards and petitioned for aid from the final forfeiture.