Los Angeles Bail Bonds …just another day

State v. Robinson, 2009 WL 4724603 (N.J.Super.A.D. December 8, 2009) was the second appeal in this case, see 2007 WL 1703501 (N.J.Super.A.D. June 14, 2007).  The defendant fled but was located in jail in North Carolina.  The State (N.J.) lodged a detainer against him, but the North Carolina authorities eventually released him anyway.  After remand of the first appeal, the trial court denied the surety’s motion to set aside the forfeiture and grant remission of the forfeited bail.  The Appellate Division affirmed.  The record supported the trial court’s findings that the defendant committed a new offense and was again a fugitive.  The trial court considered the proper factors and was within its discretion in denying the surety even a partial remission.  If the defendant is returned to custody in New Jersey, the surety can renew its motion.

In State v. Taylor, 2009 WL 4724270 (N.J.Super.A.D. December 10, 2009) the surety appealed the trial court’s order granting remission of only 25% of the bond amount.  The surety argued that under the Remittitur Guidelines it was entitled to 40% remission.  The surety conceded that prior to default it engaged in only minimal monitoring, but argued that its recovery efforts, which located the defendant in jail in another County, were immediate, substantial efforts because it did what could be done – locate the defendant – even though a simple computer search accomplished the task.  The Court disagreed and thought that a six week delay in taking action, which may have located the defendant before he was arrested in another County, was not immediate, substantial efforts and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion picking a percentage midway between minimal and partial remission.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.