STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BASSIL E. BASSIL(14-02-0244, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4602-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- Flash Bail Bonds posted a $50,000 bail for defendant Bassil on August 10, 2013 in Bergen County.
- Three days later Bassil was arrested on new Middlesex County charges; Speedy Bail Bonds posted $150,000 bail for those charges without Flash Bail's knowledge.
- Bassil failed to appear in Bergen County on March 20, 2014; a forfeiture judgment against Flash Bail was entered June 25, 2014, with enforcement stayed to allow Flash Bail to surrender Bassil.
- The trial court extended the stay multiple times (to Sept. 9, 2014, then Nov. 7, 2014) and effectively until April 23, 2015, while Flash Bail tried to locate Bassil.
- Flash Bail moved on Nov. 7, 2014 to vacate the forfeiture, arguing the State’s failure to notify it of the new higher bond (and resulting increased flight risk) justified relief; the court denied the motion on April 23, 2015.
- Flash Bail appealed from the April 23, 2015 denial; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forfeiture judgment should be vacated under equitable or Rule 4:50-1(f) grounds because another surety posted a later, larger bond without notice to the original surety | State: No duty to notify a prior surety; no legal basis to vacate the forfeiture | Flash Bail: New, higher bond materially increased flight risk; State should have notified surety and relief (vacatur/exoneration) is warranted | Court: Denied relief; no authority imposes obligation on State to notify surety and no abuse of discretion in refusing to vacate forfeiture |
| Whether Flash Bail’s appeal was timely | State: Appeal untimely (challenging original June 2014 forfeiture) | Flash Bail: Appeal challenges April 23, 2015 order denying motion to vacate; notice filed June 3, 2015 is timely | Court: Appeal timely—it challenges the April 23, 2015 order |
| Whether State v. Ceylan requires exoneration or notification to sureties when a defendant incurs new charges | State: Ceylan does not impose a duty on the State to notify or require exoneration absent surrender | Flash Bail: Ceylan supports relief because risk materially changed after new charges/bond | Court: Ceylan distinguishable; it allowed surrender-based exoneration but did not create a notice obligation on the State |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying continued stay or vacatur given opportunities to surrender the defendant | State: Court afforded ample time to surrender; no abuse | Flash Bail: Needed relief because increased risk was not communicated | Court: No abuse of discretion; stays provided ample opportunity and equitable relief not justified |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ceylan, 352 N.J. Super. 139 (App. Div.) (surety may be permitted to surrender defendant and seek exoneration where risk materially changes)
- State v. Hyers, 122 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div.) (remission of forfeiture is equitable in nature)
- State v. Peace, 63 N.J. 127 (forfeiture may be set aside in the interest of justice under court rules)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 4:50-1 review)
- DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242 (Rule 4:50-1(f) is an equitable catch-all for exceptional circumstances)
- Court Inv. Co. v. Perillo, 48 N.J. 334 (equitable principles underlie relief from judgments)
- State v. Ventura, 196 N.J. 203 (appellate review standard for forfeiture/remission matters)