What Happens When You Don’t Pay Back A Bail Bondsman?
On the DTPA rely, however, the Court held that the summary judgment was in error as a result of there was greater than a mere scintilla of evidence to assist a misrepresentation of the effectiveness of the bonds to acquire the defendant’s launch in Colorado. The case was remanded for further proceedings as to the DTPA count. Kubosh v. State, 2006 WL (Tex.App. – Houston August 31, 2006) affirmed judgment in opposition to a surety on two bonds. The defendant failed to seem and the right procedure was followed to enter judgment. There was some confusion as a result of there was a co-surety whom the federal government could not find to serve, and the prosecutor misspoke and stated the federal government requested a default judgment against the primary surety who was served and did appear.
On attraction, the surety argued that the document did not assist the judgment, however the Court held that the bond and order nisi had been in the courtroom file and the trial might take judicial notice of them and not using a formal request. The surety also argued that a default judgment had been entered in opposition to him even though he appeared, however the Court held that the prosecutor simply misspoke and what was entered was based on the record not on a default. Gilmore v. State, 2006 WL (Tex.App.—Fort Worth February 9, 2006) held that an Affidavit for Release of Surety pursuant to Tex.
The objection was not made within the trial court, nevertheless, and thus not preserved for evaluate on enchantment. Burns v. State of Texas, 2004 WL (Tex. App. May 5, 2004) and three companion cases (2004 WL , , and ) all upheld the applying of a method to find out the quantity of a forfeited bond to be remitted if the defendant is surrendered. The Court also held that Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2nd 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) positively decided that subsection (a) of a former statute directing remission of the entire bond quantity much less sure costs was unconstitutional, and refused to rethink that holding.
3d 814 (Tex.App. – Waco 2007) upheld the constitutionality of a requirement that a bond for release pending an attraction have to be a surety bond not a private bond. The defendant objected to the excellence between these charged with a felony and those that had been convicted of a felony but have been appealing. The Court noted that this distinction didn’t violate any constitutional requirement.
Baeza v. State of Texas, 2004 WL (Tex. App. April 15, 2004) affirmed judgment on a bond. One element of a bond forfeiture in Texas is that the name of the defendant was known as distinctly at the courthouse door. The trial court took judicial discover that this was accomplished, and on enchantment the surety objected to such judicial notice.
In State v. Hix, 2009 WL (Tenn.Crim.App. March 31, 2009) the defendant failed to seem and a conditional forfeiture of the bond entered. The court set a show cause hearing, but neither the defendant nor the surety appeared.
Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.19 must strictly adjust to the statute and contain each required factor. The Affidavit submitted by the surety didn’t state the offense with which the defendant was charged, and so the surety could not use the court docket’s refusal to problem a warrant for the defendant as a protection to the State’s forfeiture motion after the defendant failed to seem at a subsequent listening to. The Court held that substantial compliance with Art. 17.19 was insufficient. The trial courtroom took judicial discover of the criminal case recordsdata and located that the acts of theft by possession have been the basis for the legal conspiracy and that each one the fees were from the identical legal episode. The Court held that the variance was reconciled and not deadly to forfeiture of the bonds.
One aspect of the case was the surety’s claim for damages due to the County’s alleged misuse or mishandling of the bonds. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, a swimsuit against public staff shall be dismissed if the State information a movement to compel amendment of the pleadings to call the State rather than the workers and the claimant fails to make such an amendment inside 30 days. Since the State filed its motion, which the surety opposed, and the pleading was not amended within the 30 day interval, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court docket and entered judgment dismissing the claim with prejudice. The Court of Appeals discovered that a number of of the issues on appeal have been waived because the appellants’ temporary didn’t include adequate argument or authority. The Court affirmed numerous evidentiary rulings of the trial courtroom and held that there was no basis to overturn refusal to recuse the trial judge.
The appeal was by a request for a writ of mandamus to the trial courtroom, which had disqualified the County Attorney, and the Court of Appeals directed the trial court docket to vacate its opinion with the writ of mandamus to concern if it failed to do so. In 4 State v. Williams instances, 2004 WL , , and (Tex. App. July 22, 2004) the courtroom rejected the surety’s argument that a licensed copy of the bail bond mustn’t have been admitted into proof and that the bond principal had to be served with the quotation. On the latter point, the court docket did not handle the merits of the question as a result of the surety didn’t raise the difficulty earlier than the trial court docket, and in two of the instances the principal was served anyway. Taylor v. State of Texas, 2004 WL (Tex. App. May 27, 2004) reversed a judgment against a bail agent who had signed the bond solely on behalf of the surety. The state conceded that the agent mustn’t have been personally liable.