• Mon. Oct 18th, 2021

Suspect, Bail Bondsman Exchange Gunfire At Bristolville Dollar General

general bail bondsman

Do You Still Have To Pay A Bonding Company If Charges Are Dropped?

Penal Code §1305(b), requires written discover to the bail agent and surety, and there was no dispute that the bail agent didn’t receive written notice due to the clerk’s error in addressing the envelope. Actual, but not written, discover does not fulfill the statutory requirement.

General Agent/company For Bail

Penal Code §1305(b) requires that the surety shall be launched if notice of forfeiture is not mailed inside 30 days after entry of the forfeiture. The Court held that the clerk could not overrule the judge and the forfeiture occurred on February 13 and the March 9 notice, although mailed within 30 days, couldn’t be stretched to encompass the February 13 forfeiture.

In People v. Seneca Insurance Company, 2004 WL (Cal. App. May 26, 2004) the defendant failed to look for arraignment however no complaint had been filed and the arraignment was continued. He also failed to appear on the new date, and the bond was forfeited. The clerk, nonetheless, mailed the bail agent’s discover of forfeiture to the incorrect tackle. The state represented that the bail agent was current in court, nevertheless, and thus acquired precise notice of the forfeiture.

First, the courtroom held that the failure to forfeit the bond at the first non-appearance was not a protection as a result of the arraignment couldn’t have gone forward so the defendant’s presence was not lawfully required. Second, the court docket held that the defendant was not entitled to note of the continued date because it was stated in open court docket on the primary date and he shouldn’t revenue by his failure to seem.

The courtroom, therefore, reversed the judgment and held that the surety’s motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond ought to have been granted. The second issue was that the trial courtroom entered abstract judgment against the bail agent as well as the surety.

The defendant failed to seem on February 13, 2001, and the choose issued a bench warrant and forfeited the bond. Inexplicably, the clerk’s minute order mentioned the bond was not forfeited and the bench warrant held till March 6. On March 6 the defendant didn’t seem and the bench warrant was issued and the bail bond once more forfeited. This time the clerk mailed a notice to the surety on March 9 but the discover specified only the March 6 forfeiture.

The government conceded that was error, and the court of appeals directed the trial court on remand to remove the bail agent as a judgment debtor. The defendant failed to seem on May 21 however her attorney indicated she had car hassle. On June eleven the defendant once more failed to look, the bond was once more forfeited, and this time notice of the forfeiture was given to the surety and bail agent. The Court of Appeals held that failure to provide notice of the May 21 forfeiture deprived the trial court docket of jurisdiction over the bond and the following forfeiture was void.

In Bob’s Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 2007 WL (Ark.App. April 25, 2007) the surety objected to the timeliness and form of its notification of default and summons to seem and present trigger why the bond shouldn’t be forfeited. It appeared at the show trigger listening to by way of its agent, however, and introduced none of these objections. Instead, after judgment was entered, it filed a motion to set the judgment aside. The Court held that not one of the said grounds certified as a foundation for post-judgment reduction under the civil guidelines. The surety had the chance to make its arguments at the show trigger listening to, and having failed to take action can not increase them by post-judgment motion.

The literal prohibition of the powers was not violated as a result of only one energy was used on each bond. The decision has a great survey of California cases on anti stacking provisions and implicitly acknowledges that such provisions might be enforced as written. County of Los Angeles v. Granite State Insurance Company, 2004 WL (Cal. App. June 30, 2004) held that the surety’s movement to set aside summary judgment and exonerate the bond should have been granted.