Fairfield v. Lopez
2018 Ohio 914
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Alfonso Juarez Lopez was arrested on misdemeanors; municipal court set bond at $3,500. Leticia Palmer signed as surety and Lopez was released.
- Lopez failed to appear at a December 7, 2016 pretrial; the court mailed Palmer notice giving her 45 days to produce the defendant or pay the bond and set a February 16, 2017 hearing.
- Palmer later asserted ICE had taken Lopez into federal custody and deported him to Mexico before he was available for court, making production impossible.
- Palmer did not appear at the February 16 hearing; the municipal court adjudicated the bond forfeited.
- Palmer moved for remission under R.C. 2937.39 and alternatively for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). The municipal court denied relief after a brief hearing in which no evidence was taken.
- The appellate court affirmed the forfeiture and denial of statutory remission but reversed the denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Palmer) | Defendant's Argument (City/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether production of the defendant was impossible due to ICE custody/deportation, excusing surety | Deportation by ICE made production of Lopez impossible (defense of impossibility) | Surety bears risk; posting bond for someone potentially removable is the surety's responsibility | For purposes of statutory forfeiture, court found notice/procedure complied and forfeiture proper; impossibility was relevant to Civ.R.60(B) and required evidentiary hearing |
| Whether court erred by failing to analyze remission factors under R.C. 2937.39 before denying remission | Court should have weighed remission factors before denying relief under R.C. 2937.39 | Remission under R.C. 2937.39 is available only after the accused reappears or is rearrested; here Lopez had not reappeared, so remission criteria not met | Court held statutory remission inapplicable and no factor analysis was required because R.C. 2937.39’s conditions were unmet |
| Whether municipal court abused discretion by denying Civ.R. 60(B) without taking evidence | Palmer requested a hearing and intended to present evidence (ICE custody/deportation) to satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) elements | The court treated the matter as the surety's risk and made factual determinations without testimony | Court abused its discretion by refusing to permit presentation of evidence on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion; remanded for an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hughes, 27 Ohio St.3d 19 (1986) (production of the body or otherwise may exonerate surety)
- State v. Holmes, 57 Ohio St.3d 11 (1991) (production of defendant constitutes good cause against forfeiture)
- State v. American Bail Bond Agency, 129 Ohio App.3d 708 (10th Dist. 1998) (factors for remission analysis)
- Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App.2d 223 (8th Dist. 1978) (appeal from order granting Civ.R. 60(B) hearing is decided on the evidence introduced at hearing)
- Toledo v. Gaston, 188 Ohio App.3d 241 (6th Dist. 2010) (R.C. 2937.39 provides for post-appearance remission of forfeiture)