People v. Fallis, 2017 COA 131

Defendant Thomas Fallis was arrested on a murder charge and the district court set a $500,000 bond.
Fallis was released after surety Alfred Perna posted the bond in exchange for a $25,000 premium.
Fallis complied with court orders and appeared at hearings for about 14 months.
Shortly before trial, Perna surrendered Fallis to custody; family later posted a new bond and paid another $25,000 premium to a different surety.
Fallis was ultimately acquitted and moved for return of the premium paid to Perna; the district court ordered Perna to refund a portion ($11,031.25), applying an unjust-enrichment analysis and a usury rate analogy.
Perna appealed, arguing the court lacked statutory authority to order a premium refund under the applicable bail statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had statutory authority under § 16-4-110(1)(d) to order refund of part of a premium when a compensated surety surrenders a defendant after initial appearance	Fallis argued the court could order refund to prevent unjust enrichment because Perna surrendered defendant and benefited from months of free pretrial liberty	Perna argued the statute permits refunds only when surrender occurs prior to the defendant’s initial appearance; here surrender was after initial appearance so court lacked authority	Court vacated refund order: statute allows refund only if surrender occurred prior to the defendant’s initial appearance, so district court lacked authority to order partial refund

People v. Carrethers, 867 P.2d 189 (Colo. App. 1993) (interpreting pre-2013 statute to allow premium refunds where surrender occurred before the appearance date fixed in the bond and construing related provisions together)
U.S. Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1994) (legislative amendment presumes awareness of judicial precedent)
Vaughn v. Dist. Court, 559 P.2d 222 (Colo. 1977) (civil action may be pursued separately to seek relief from a surety)