Posted 1/28/2016

United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds and Insurance Agency, Case No. 90-cv-4029 (N.D.Cal. January 15, 2016) held that the Government did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the penalties provided by 31 C.F.R. §901.9(a) and $10 per month administrative fees.

In Royal Consulate of the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia v. Pullan, 2016 WL 197931 (Utah January 15, 2016) the Consulate deposited $100,000 as bail for the defendant.  The defendant failed to appear, and the trial court forfeited the cash bail without notice to the Consulate.  The Court recognized that a surety would have been entitled to notice, but found that the Consulate did not become a surety by making the cash deposit.  The Court declined to reach the Consulate’s objections to the merits of the forfeiture order because the Consulate lacked standing to challenge it.

In State v. Williams, Case No. 1CA-CV-15-203 (Ariz.App. January 19, 2016) the surety attempted to surrender the defendant by delivering her to a sheriff at the courthouse, but the sheriff would not take custody.  A few days later, the defendant failed to appear, and the trial court eventually forfeited the entire amount of the bond ($6,300).  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court thought that a surrender under A.R.S. §13-3974 required taking the defendant to an “appropriate location.”  The Court did not say what that would have been, but the trial court thought the surety should either have taken the defendant “to the sheriff’s central intake office or to the judge, asking the court to arrest her and relieve him from any further responsibility.”  The Court also rejected the surety’s arguments that the refusal to accept surrender made performance of his duties impossible under the rule of Taylor v. Traintor and that the trial court abused its discretion in forfeiting the entire amount of the bond.