In State v. Nelson, 2010 WL 3220156 (Minn.App. August 17, 2010) the defendant was apprehended by law enforcement personnel two months after he failed to appear. The surety did not contribute to his re-capture. The trial court initially reinstated the bond but imposed a 50% penalty because the surety did not serve the defendant with notice of the hearings on its motion to reinstate and discharge the bond. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision in an opinion reported at 773 N.W.2d 330 (Minn.App. 2009). Following remand, and without holding a further hearing, the trial court issued an order reviewing the factors for a penalty following reinstatement of a bond (the Shetsky factors) and reached the same result that it had before, i.e. a 50% penalty. The surety appealed the trial court’s refusal to hold a new hearing and its forfeiture of 50% of the bond. The Court held that the original two hearings gave the surety ample opportunity to present whatever evidence it had and that the trial court’s application of the Shetsky factors was not an abuse of discretion. In particular, the surety’s failure to make good faith efforts to apprehend the defendant during the two months in which he was a fugitive supported the trial court’s decision.
Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds
Posts Tagged “los angeles bail bonds”In People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. , 2010 WL 3009588 (Cal.App. August 3, 2010) the defendant fled to Mexico. A few days before expiration of the extended appearance period, the surety learned that the defendant had been arrested in Mexico and confined to a town there. The surety filed a motion to toll the running of the appearance period either because the confinement was a temporary disability pursuant to Penal Code §1305(e) or on equitable grounds. The trial court denied relief and entered summary judgment against the surety. On appeal, the Court accepted that confinement could be a temporary disability but rejected the surety’s argument because the defendant was not absent based upon the temporary disability. The Court held: “We accordingly construe section 1305(e) as follows. A detention occurs where civil authorities restrain a defendant, whether by physical apprehension or by force of law. A defendant is ‘temporarily disable[d] by reason of’ the detention (§1305(e)(1)) when the operation of law is the direct cause of a defendant’s failure to appear . . . However, a detention has not prevented the defendant’s appearance under section 1305(e) when it merely buttresses the preexisting direct cause, such as where a defendant voluntarily flees to a country to which the bail agents cannot travel . . . “ The Court found that the evidence provided by the surety, unauthenticated E-mails, was insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion in finding that the defendant was not absent from the court based on his confinement in Mexico. The Court also found that the record was inadequate to compel granting equitable tolling of the appearance period. No reporter’s transcript was provided, so the Court did not know the basis on which the trial court rejected the surety’s motion for equitable tolling. The Court declined to address the merits of the surety’s equitable tolling argument because of the surety’s failure to provide an adequate record. [Not Published]. In Casteneda v. State , 2010 WL 3030973 (Tex.App. – San Antonio August 4, 2010) the surety filed an answer to the rule to show cause but did not appear for the hearing. The court entered a final judgment forfeiting the bond, and the surety did not pursue an appeal. Instead, the surety filed a bill of review as a separate cause. The trial court denied relief and the surety appealed. The Court found no just cause for the surety not to have raised its defenses in a direct appeal of the judgment and so no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the separate bill of review. The Court affirmed the judgment without considering the surety’s alleged defense on the merits of the case. In United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds and Insurance Agency, Inc., 2010 WL 2985545 (N.D.Cal. July 27, 2010) the Government sued an agent and surety to collect on certain immigration bonds and the defendants counterclaimed. The court held that the bonds were three party contracts among the surety, the United States and the principal and that there was Tucker Act jurisdiction over the surety’s counterclaim to recover money paid on forfeited bonds. The court also, however, held that the Department of Homeland Security’s administrative procedure for declaring a breach of the bond and for an administrative appeal of that declaration was valid and the court’s review would be on the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedures Act. The court rejected the surety’s contention that it was entitled to a de novo determination of its liability but did hold that the surety was entitled to discovery of the alien’s “A-file.” The surety could use information from the file to help show that the Government’s determination of a breach was arbitrary and capricious because it did not consider all pertinent information or did not follow the law, regulations, agreements or other authority. In Villasana v. City of Houston , 2010 WL 2991095 (S.D.Tex. July 26, 2010) an attorney who acted as bail bond surety for his clients in the City’s Municipal Court filed a purported civil rights action against the City and several of its employees objecting to the City’s attempts to compel payment on forfeited bonds that he alleged he had been told would not have to be paid. The suit sought to enjoin the City from refusing to accept the attorney’s bonds, to exonerate all bonds written during a certain time period, and to have any subsequent bonds processed “in accordance with due process.” The defendants moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court recited some confusion as to procedures on such bonds but found no basis for a claim that the City’s actions were substantively or procedurally unfair and no basis to relieve the attorney from his obligations. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds, nationwide bail bondsWell, sir, that is a good question! Strictly speaking, the answer to you question is a resounding…. NO! In the State of California, you can us:
The above three (3) choices can have a big impact on your life for very different reasons. If you go with option 1. (Property Bond) You may have to spend a little more time in jail while waiting for the jurisdiction you are residing in to come up with a valuation of your property and a ruling as to whether or not it is sufficient to cover the bond. The period of time in history being “The Great Recession” makes it much more precarious to get the valuation you want to be able to use your property. If you go with option 2. (Cash Bail) you are putting your full faith and trust in the court system. Not only do they hold your money without giving you any interest, any fine or restitution can be taken from the money you have put up with the court. The court being a part of the State and the State being in a financial mess, I wouldn’t want them controlling a large sum of my money with the ability to hold as much as they want in “fines”. If you go with option 3. (Surety Bail) you get to play with someone else’s money. Sure, you have to come up with the 10% fee on the bail, but the other 90% never comes into play as long as you make your court appearances. Bail bonds companies usually charge 10% of the total bond amount. This is regulated through the California Department of Insurance. If the bail is set at $30,000, it would cost the person assuming responsibility for the defendant (indemnitor), $3,000 to bail out their friend or family member. This is a fee to the bondsman for assuming the liability of the full $30,000. There you have it. You don’t have to use a bail bondsman to get out of jail, but it sure does make sense to use one… Tags: bail, cash bail, los angeles bail bonds, property bond, surety bondIn State v. Liupaono, 2010 WL 374576 (Hawaii January 6, 2010) the surety appealed from denial of its motion for reconsideration of denial of its motion to set aside forfeiture of its bond. The record, however, did not include a judgment of forfeiture, a motion to set aside forfeiture, or an order denying such a motion. The Court recognized that an order denying a motion to set aside forfeiture of a bail bond would be an appealable final order, but found that on the record before it there was no appealable order and therefore that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal. In Safety National Casualty Corp. v. State, 2010 WL 715246 (Tex.Crim.App. March 3, 2010) the Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision published at 273 S.W.3d 730 (Tex.App. – Houston 2008) and held that an appeal in a bail bond forfeiture case was not subject to the civil appeal filing fees. The Court looked at the predecessors of Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 44.44 and held that although the statute applied the civil action rules to bail bond forfeiture proceedings, the Legislature did not intend to apply the civil fee schedule in such cases. Seven Justices joined in this result and two dissented. In Dominguez v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 2010 WL 697274 (S.D.Tex. February 23, 2010) the defendant agency and surety filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs (and some members of the putative class they purported to represent) breached their immigration bond contracts and were obligated to indemnity the defendants for costs and attorneys fees should the defendants prevail. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion. It had supplemental jurisdiction and the indemnity provision, as interpreted by the defendants, could apply to the case. In Huntington National Bank v. Lomaz, 2010 WL 702439 (Ohio App. February 26, 2010) a judgment creditor recorded its judgment and sought to foreclose on real property owned by the defendants. The defendants appealed and posted a $92,500 supersedeas bond. The bond was obtained from an agent who used a $50,000 power of attorney for bail bonds and secured the balance with property allegedly owned by the agent. The appeal was eventually dismissed, and after several hearings the trial court entered judgment against the agent and surety, jointly and severally, for $50,000 and against the agent for the balance of the bond amount. On appeal, the agent and surety raised several procedural issues. They also argued that the judgment was not affirmed and, since the property was sold there were no damages to collect from the bond. The surety argued that the power of attorney showed on its face that it was only for bail bonds and the agent had no actual or apparent authority to bind the surety to a supersedeas bond. The Court rejected each argument and affirmed the judgment. In the trial court the surety and agent were represented by the same attorney (apparently the agent’s attorney) and the surety did not raise the power of attorney issue. The Court held that the plain error doctrine did not allow the surety to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also thought that the agent prepared the bond and the principal got the benefit of the bond by delaying the foreclosure, so any technical defects in the bond were chargeable to the agent not the innocent judgment creditor. The judgment creditor presented evidence of its damages from the delay caused by the appeal, and the agent did not attack this evidence before the trial court. As such, he waived any objection to it on appeal. The surety and agent had an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in the trial court and did not raise their various procedural objections there. They could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Tags: bail, bail agent, criminal, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds, nationwide bail bonds
Feb
18
2010
 
Bail Business is down. People leaving the industry.Posted by frankrepetti in UncategorizedAsk most bail agents about their business these days and you’ll find out some sobering news. They are facing laying off hard working people, many of them family members, as they scramble to cut costs during the great recession. They are unable to pay their bills. They face eviction, foreclosure and possibly bankruptcy. Many long time agents (this one included) have never seen anything like this before. The drop-off in business is staggering. Two publications in California have just run stories about this. The Times Herald and the Imperial Valley Press both tell similar stories. Bail Bonds and the Super Bowl have a long running connection. Learn more about celebrity and athlete arrests. Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, criminal, lawyer, los angeles bail bonds, Los Angeles County Jail, monday night football, nationwide bail bonds, police, sheriff, superbowl, warren sapp48 year old ex-teen heartthrob Leif Garrett was arrested in Los Angeles. Find out details and what happened next. Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, bail bondsman, clebrity bail bond, crime, criminal, drugs, Howard Stern, inmates, jail, lawyer, leif garrett, los angeles bail bonds, police, sheriffA Bail Agent answers two burning questions: “What is your favorite Bail Bonds movie?” and “What is the most realistic Bail Bonds movie?” Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, bail bondsman, bounty hunter, bridget fonda, crime, dog the bounty hunter, fugitive, inmates, jackie brown, jail, los angeles bail bonds, Los Angeles County Jail, midnight run, murderer, police, robert de niro, samuel jackson, sheriff, silver screen, steve mcqueen, the hunterIn State v. Bail Bonds USA, 2010 WL 129674 (Ariz.App. January 14, 2010) the surety posted a bond for the defendant, who was turned over to federal immigration authorities rather than released. She remained in federal custody. The defendant failed to appear for arraignment and the bond was forfeited. The Court of Appeals thought that if the State could obtain the return of the defendant from the federal authorities, the bond should be exonerated. On the other hand, if the defendant was deported or otherwise not available to the State, the bond could be forfeited. The Court vacated the judgment of forfeiture and remanded the case to give the surety an opportunity to demonstrate that the State could obtain return of the defendant. In People v. Fairmont Specialty Group, 2010 WL 144802 (Cal.App. January 15, 2010) the bail agent, on behalf of the surety, filed a timely motion to extend the appearance period together with a conclusory affidavit. A supplemental affidavit with details of the efforts to recover the defendant was filed after the appearance period expired. The trial court thought the motion was untimely and denied an extension. On appeal, the Court noted that the agent had conceded the motion was untimely and held that the conclusory affidavit did not meet the statutory requirements for an extension of the appearance period. The inadequate affidavit could not be cured by a more detailed affidavit filed after expiration of the time to request an extension. The Court also rejected the surety’s arguments based on the trial court issuing a forfeiture and bench warrant but holding them for five days because the defense attorney represented there was a sufficient excuse for the defendant’s failure to appear. The court was not deprived of jurisdiction later to declare the forfeiture. The Court treated the trial court’s five day hold as a continuance for good cause. The surety also disputed the trial court’s authority to declare a default when the defendant did not appear after the five day period because there was no order that he appear on that date. The Court thought the presence of defense counsel and understanding that the defendant was to appear and present his excuse was sufficient to “lawfully require” the defendant’s appearance at the conclusion of the five day hold and justify forfeiture of the bond when he did not appear. [Not published]. Tags: bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, crime, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds |
Entries (RSS)