State of West Virginia v. Weatherholtz Bail Bonding, 16-0396

Background

Weatherholtz Bail Bonding (petitioner/surety) posted a $50,000 bond for Roger C. Doleman on serious felony charges; Doleman failed to appear for his June 24, 2014 trial.
Circuit court forfeited the bond, stayed entry of default for 30 days to allow Weatherholtz to attempt to return Doleman, then entered default and ordered remittance when Doleman remained at large.
Weatherholtz later filed pleadings claiming extensive efforts to locate Doleman (surveillance, suits against indemnitors, an identified Maryland address provided to law enforcement) but did not present sworn testimony from its principal; it called Doleman as a witness at a hearing.
Doleman was arrested in Maryland on unrelated charges, convicted there, and later returned to West Virginia via the interstate detainer process more than once; Weatherholtz argued it caused his capture and sought remission or statutory reimbursement of the forfeiture.
The circuit court denied Weatherholtz’s motion to remit the forfeited bond, its motions to reopen evidence and to alter/amend; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Weatherholtz)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to remit all or part of a forfeited bail bond under Hedrick factors	Forfeiture denial was proper because defendant absconded, caused delay and prejudice, and Weatherholtz failed to present adequate evidentiary proof of its efforts	Weatherholtz argued it diligently searched, materially contributed to capture, suffered business hardship, and thus remission (partial or full) was warranted	Court affirmed: abuse-of-discretion standard; Hedrick factors weighed against remission and Weatherholtz failed its burden to show abuse of discretion
Whether Weatherholtz was required to verify/submit sworn evidence of its efforts to apprehend the defendant	Court: factual assertions in counsel’s pleadings are not evidence; sworn/verified proof is proper for adjudicating Hedrick factors	Weatherholtz contended verification is not mandated by Hedrick and that its pleadings and the defendant’s testimony sufficed	Court held verification/evidence requirement acceptable; counsel’s statements insufficient and Weatherholtz had opportunity to present sworn testimony but did not
Whether denial to re-open evidence or to allow additional proof denied Weatherholtz access to courts or due process	Court found Weatherholtz had ample opportunity to present evidence at hearing and by motion; denial was within discretion	Weatherholtz claimed it was prevented from proving its efforts and that the hearing was treated like an argument hearing without notice	Court held no denial of opportunity: Weatherholtz chose not to elicit sworn testimony from its principal and failed to timely present adequate evidence
Whether WV Code § 62-1C-12(b) entitled Weatherholtz to statutory reimbursement because the defendant was returned within two years (allegedly due to Weatherholtz’s efforts)	State: statute requires the bail bondsman to return the defendant personally to the custody of the court within two years to obtain reimbursement; mere contribution to capture insufficient	Weatherholtz argued the statute’s purpose is satisfied because its efforts led to Doleman’s return within two years, so reimbursement should follow	Court construed the statute narrowly: reimbursement requires the bail bondsman to return the defendant to the court’s custody; Weatherholtz did not meet the statutory condition, so no reimbursement

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hedrick, 204 W. Va. 547, 514 S.E.2d 397 (1999) (establishes Hedrick factors and that surety bears burden to show abuse of discretion for remission)
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation issues)
State v. Epperly, 135 W. Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951) (clear statutory language is applied as written; courts do not rewrite unambiguous statutes)