STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MIGUEL Y. TINEO-PAULINO (09-01-0178, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5076-14T1

Background

Blaze Bail Bonds posted a $100,000 commercial bail bond for Miguel Tineo‑Paulino in December 2008; he failed to appear in July 2009 and bail was forfeited and a default judgment entered in October 2009.
Blaze produced a Dominican death certificate (with an apostille) and obtained vacatur/exoneration in December 2010; county later discovered defendant was alive and arrested on federal charges.
On November 14, 2012 the court re‑forfeited bail; that order was stayed and later affirmed on appeal in April 2014.
Blaze filed a second motion in April 2014 to vacate/exonerate; the State threatened sanctions under Rule 1:4‑8 and later moved for a writ of execution on the preexisting judgment and for counsel fees after the indictment was dismissed in October 2014.
Trial court (Mar. 6, 2015) returned $75,000 to Blaze (remitted 25%), denied the State’s writ and denied counsel fees—finding Rule 1:4‑8 notice defective and invoking equitable tolling of N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑8; State appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remission/exoneration was inappropriate because defendant never produced and default judgment stands	Remission is improper where fundamental condition (production) never met; nothing shows defendant was ever in custody or judgment vacated	Remission may be appropriate given vacatur, later dismissal, and equitable considerations	Court affirmed discretion to remit but reversed the remission amount as exceeding applicable Schedule 3 maximum; remand for recalculation
Whether the trial court misapplied Remission Schedule 3 in setting 25% remission	Even under Schedule 3, facts support only minimal remission (0–10%), not 25% or 75% return to surety	Trial judge relied on Hyers factors and special reason (false death certificate) to justify 25% remission	Court found judge’s factual Hyers analysis sound but his application of Schedule 3 was a legal error; reversed and remanded to recalculate within Schedule 3 limits
Whether surety’s claim for return of funds is time‑barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑8 (four‑year limitation)	Surety’s forfeiture occurred in 2009 so claims now time‑barred	Forfeiture was vacated in 2010 and reinstated in 2012; the surety filed within four years of the 2012 forfeiture	Court held surety was not time‑barred; relief sought within four years of the operative forfeiture
Whether State is entitled to counsel fees under Rule 1:4‑8 for frivolous litigation	State failed to include required 28‑day withdrawal notice but omission is not consequential; fees should be awarded because second motion was frivolous	Surety had colorable basis (years of litigation, vacatur, eventual dismissal); no bad faith or harassment	Court affirmed denial of fees: strict compliance with Rule 1:4‑8 required and trial court reasonably found no bad faith; denial affirmed on alternate ground

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ventura, 196 N.J. 203 (establishes Hyers‑factor balancing for bail remission)
State v. Hyers, 122 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 1973) (sets core Hyers factors for bail remission)
State v. Mercado, 329 N.J. Super. 265 (App. Div. 2000) (focus on surety’s efforts to secure defendant)
State v. de la Hoya, 359 N.J. Super. 194 (App. Div. 1999) (considers bond amount and surety steps in remission analysis)
State v. Harmon, 361 N.J. Super. 250 (App. Div. 2003) (intangible public‑interest injury discussed in remediation context)
State v. Peace, 63 N.J. 127 (1973) (remission lies in judicial discretion; public‑interest harm weight)
State v. Singletary, 170 N.J. Super. 454 (Law Div. 1979) (statute’s time limit relates to forfeiture date, not subsequent judgments)
State v. Toscano, 389 N.J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 2007) (measuring immediacy of surety’s efforts from notice of forfeiture)
State v. Ruccatano, 388 N.J. Super. 620 (App. Div. 2006) (defining ‘substantial’ and ‘effective’ recovery efforts)
State v. Franklin Sav. & Loan Assoc., 389 N.J. Super. 272 (App. Div. 2006) (strict compliance with Rule 1:4‑8 prerequisite to fee recovery)