Ron Applegate v. Lucky Bail Bonds, Inc.
197 Wash. App. 153
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Dorothy Applegate signed a bail bond for her daughter Elizabeth; Elizabeth skipped court and Lucky Bail Bonds hired recovery agents to apprehend her.
- Agents went to the Applegate property late at night, encountered Ron Applegate on the porch, a scuffle ensued, the agents forced entry, Elizabeth was inside and taken into custody, and Applegate suffered injuries and property damage.
- Applegate sued Lucky and the agents for assault, trespass, and related claims; the jury returned a defense verdict.
- At trial the court instructed the jury using Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 205–206 principles defining a bondsman’s privilege to enter land and to use force to enter dwellings when reasonably believing the principal is present and after demand for admittance.
- Applegate argued on appeal that Washington law does not permit forcible entry into a third party’s dwelling; he also challenged the trespass instruction burden allocation under RCW 4.24.630.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of bondsman's privilege to enter third-party land/dwellings | Bondsmen never privileged to force entry into third-party residences | Common law (Taylor and Restatement §§205–206) permits limited entry/forcible entry when reasonably believing principal is present and acting reasonably | Instructions based on Restatement §§205–206 correctly state Washington law; privilege exists but is limited by reasonableness and demand requirements |
| Whether instructions misstated the law | Instructions improperly allowed forcible entry into third-party dwelling | Instructions tracked common-law limits and required jury to find excess of privilege if conduct unreasonable | Court reviewed de novo and affirmed that instructions did not misstate the law |
| Use of term "warrant" vs. bail contract and potential misidentification | Agents’ failure to show a warrant caused Applegate’s reaction; jury should be instructed on distinction | Industry usage varies; statute requires production of bail contract on request and forbids impersonating officers | Court noted the issue but did not decide it on appeal; jury was instructed on statutory duty to produce the bail contract and on prohibition against implying one is a peace officer |
| Burden of proof on statutory trespass (RCW 4.24.630) | Plaintiff should not bear burden to prove defendants lacked privilege | Defendant argued plaintiff must prove lack of authorization because wrongful injury requires lack of authorization | Held plaintiff must prove defendants lacked authorization; the trespass instruction placing burden on plaintiff was correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. 366 (recognizes broad common-law powers of bail to pursue and recapture, including forcible entry in certain circumstances)
- Nicolls v. Ingersoll, 7 Johns. 145 (N.Y. 1810) (early common-law authority treating principal as effectively in custody of sureties and limiting bondsman power by reasonableness and demand)
- State v. Portnoy, 43 Wn. App. 455 (bondsman has extraordinary powers but use of force is limited; no blanket immunity for third-party harm)
- State v. Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (rejected forcible entry into third-party residence; cited as an atypical holding)
- Lopez v. McCotter, 734 P.2d 778 (N.M. 1986) (refused instructions on common-law privilege where statutory extradition procedures constrained bondsmen)
- State v. Mathis, 349 N.C. 503 (recognizes privilege when third-party dwelling has effectively become principal’s residence)