Bail Bond Agent Blog

State of Missouri v. Angela M. Cook, 104 S.W.3d 808, 2003 WL 21153484 (Mo. App. May 20, 2003) held that the bail agent had apparent authority to appear for the surety at a forfeiture hearing.

In American Western Bonding Company, Inc. v. United Surety Agents, Inc., 2004 WL 627996 (Mo. App. March 31, 2004) a bail agent sued a managing general agent to recover a buildup fund. The trial court held that (1) the MGA properly paid a bond forfeiture from the fund, (2) the agent was not entitled to damages for alleged mismanagement of the fund, (3) the agent was not entitled to punitive damages, and (4) the agent was entitled to the money held in the fund. Since neither party knew the exact amount, no judgment was entered for a sum certain. The parties could not agree on the amount (the MGA claimed it could subtract litigation costs) and the trial court entered an “amended” judgment for the amount in the fund without reduction for the litigation costs. The MGA appealed claiming that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to “amend” the judgment. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the first judgment was not final and could be modified, and affirmed the modified judgment.

In State v. Carroll, 2005 WL 1563084 (Mo. App. July 6, 2005) the defendant failed to appear but the bail agent located him in jail in Georgia and had the Sheriff enter the warrant in the N.C.I.C. system. In due course, the Georgia authorities informed the Sheriff that the defendant could be picked up, but the Sheriff did not tell the bail agent. Instead, the Sheriff sent two deputies to bring the defendant back to Missouri at a cost of $2,988.59. The Court refused to forfeit the bond, but ordered the surety to pay the $2,988.59. The surety appealed and the Court of Appeals reduced the amount to the $584.40 that the bail agent testified it would have cost him to go to Georgia and bring the defendant back. The applicable Missouri statute, §374.200.2, provides that the bail agent shall have the “first opportunity” to return the defendant incarcerated in another state and if unable to do so shall pay the cost for the State to return him.

Lass v. Wright, 2006 WL 1330984 (Mo.App. May 17, 2006) affirmed judgment on a promissory note. The defendant was convicted of second degree murder, and the court set bond at $1 million. The fee for the bond was $90,000, and the defendant’s father paid $2,000 and signed a note for the balance. Several months later, the court of appeals ruled that someone convicted of second degree murder was not eligible for release on bond, revoked the bond and incarcerated the defendant. The bondsman sued for the balance owed on the note, and the father counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. The father argued that the bond was illegal and so the note was not collectible. The Court noted that the bondsman was properly licensed and the defendant was released for several months. The Court refused to cancel the note and affirmed judgment for the bondsman.

Tags: Bail Bond Case Law //