Posted 10/5/2014

 In State v. Big Dawg Bail Bonds, 2014 WL 4637514 (Idaho App. September 18, 2014) the Court affirmed partial remission of the bond.  The defendant failed to appear, but there was a delay of about two weeks in notifying the surety and posting the bench warrant on the court’s register.  The surety showed that it spent about $8,000 trying to recover the defendant before concluding that she had fled to India.  The surety argued that but for the trial court’s delays it could have surrendered the defendant before she fled.  The trial court thought the surety and the State shared equal responsibility and remitted $29,000 of the bond.  The trial court calculated the remission by adding the $8,000 of expenses to the $50,000 bond and remitting half on the theory that the State and the surety were equally responsible.  The surety argued that the bond should have been fully exonerated.

The Court found that the trial court should have issued the bench warrant immediately as required by Idaho Code §19-2915(1).  On the other hand, the surety could have acted more promptly in monitoring the case and seeking to locate the defendant before she had a chance to abscond.  The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering partial remission of the bond.

People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., 2014 WL 4808850 (Cal.App. September 29, 2014) affirmed judgment forfeiting the bond.  The surety argued that the defendant was not required to appear on the date the bond was forfeited because it was not a preliminary hearing but only a pre-preliminary hearing to set a date for the actual preliminary hearing.  The Court examined the record and disagreed.  The matter was scheduled for a preliminary hearing, the defendant’s attendance was required by Penal Code §1043.5, and the defendant knew of the date because he was present in court when it was set.  [Not published].

In Montoya v. Dallas County Bail Bond Board, 2014 WL 4771854 (N.D.Tex. September 24, 2014) a former holder of a bail bond surety license sued the Bail Bond Board alleging racial and age discrimination in the revocation of his license and various tort claims.  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and summarily dismissed the complaint.  Even assuming it otherwise stated a claim, the suit was time barred by the Texas two year statute of limitations for personal injury claims and various other procedural defects.