Financial Casualty Company v. Mark Hunt
05-14-00928-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Cooper, an agent for a surety, posted bail for Mark Hunt in multiple Dallas County criminal cases; she filed a surrender affidavit in one case and article 17.16 affidavits in the others.
- A magistrate discharged Cooper from liability on one bond after an article 17.16 affidavit; Cooper filed an article 17.19 affidavit in another case that led to Hunt's arrest.
- Hunt contested the surrender under Tex. Occupations Code § 1704.207, and after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found the surrender unreasonable and ordered Cooper to refund premiums (and return collateral).
- The trial court signed a December 3, 2013 order directing refund of $4,025 for one bond; Cooper appealed that order as a final judgment.
- Hunt moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the refund order is interlocutory and not directly appealable.
- The Court of Appeals granted Hunt's motion and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding no statute authorizes a direct appeal from the interlocutory refund order under § 1704.207.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order requiring refund of bail-premium is immediately appealable | Cooper: the December 3, 2013 order is a final judgment and appealable | Hunt: the order is interlocutory ancillary to the criminal case and not appealable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — order is interlocutory and not directly appealable |
| Whether § 1704.207 provides an interlocutory appeal right | Cooper: challenges should be treated as a separate civil action allowing appeal | Hunt: § 1704.207 vests resolution in the criminal trial court and contains no appellate shortcut | Court: no statutory authority for interlocutory appeal under § 1704.207 |
| Whether the refund determination becomes final before disposition of the criminal case | Cooper: (implicitly) refund order is separable and final for appellate purposes | Hunt: refund is ancillary and finality occurs upon dismissal/conviction/acquittal per § 1704.208 | Court: final resolution contemplated at case disposition; interlocutory now |
| Whether the court should construe procedural defects (service/appearance) to permit appeal | Cooper: Hunt's contest required citation and civil-service; Cooper had to be served | Hunt: Cooper appeared and litigated in trial court, so jurisdictional service claim is meritless | Court: appearance/response in trial court defeats separate-service claim; not an avenue to create appellate jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (jurisdictional inquiry is prerequisite to appellate review)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (only final judgments are appealable absent statutory exception)
- Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (no appellate jurisdiction for interlocutory orders on bail matters)
- Whitehead v. State, 625 S.W.2d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (bond forfeiture and related proceedings are incidental to criminal case)
- City of Dallas v. Smith, 716 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (forfeiture/ancillary bond matters are part of the criminal proceeding)