80 So. 3d 1288
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bankers Insurance posted a commercial surety bond for Christopher Brown after his October 16, 2009 arrest.
- Brown failed to appear on November 19, 2009; judge ordered bond forfeiture, but no written judgment was signed.
- Brown appeared November 20, 2009; case reset to February 10, 2010; Brown again failed to appear on February 10, 2010 and forfeiture was ordered, with no written judgment.
- Prosecutor later set a status conference for April 21, 2010; Brown failed to appear; bond forfeiture hearing scheduled for May 17, 2010.
- May 17, 2010, forfeiture ordered again in open court and a written judgment was signed; affidavit of bond forfeiture mailed June 4, 2010.
- Bankers moved to set aside; trial court denied; Court reverses, finding failure to mail timely notice invalidated the forfeiture and released Bankers from the bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to mail notice within 60 days nullifies forfeiture | Bankers: notice not mailed within 60 days releases sureties. | State: notice timing not fatal; appearance on Nov 20, 2009 set aside forfeiture; subsequent timely action required. | Forfeiture nullified; Bankers released due to untimely notice |
| Whether Brown's November 20, 2009 appearance operated to rescind the forfeiture | Bankers: no effect after 11/20/09; forfeiture remained. | State: appearance operated to set aside forfeiture by operation of law. | Appearance rescinded forfeiture; bond reinstated; no notice needed at that time |
| Whether the State properly completed the bond forfeiture within 60 days after February 10, 2010 | Bankers: no written judgment or proper notice within 60 days defeats forfeiture. | State: forfeiture could proceed; the 60-day window applied once judgment entered. | State failed to complete forfeiture within 60 days; bond released |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Ins. Co. v. State, 843 So.2d 641 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2003) (bond forfeiture requires strict compliance with statutory procedure)
- State v. Williams, 977 So.2d 154 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (appearance can affect forfeiture and notice considerations)
- State v. Polk, 688 So.2d 191 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997) (forfeiture process must be completed within sixty days of defendant’s failure)
- State v. Wheeler, 499 So.2d 1275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1986) (rescission of forfeiture reinstates bond; does not cancel obligations)
- State v. Adkins, 613 So.2d 164 (La.1993) (amendment timing does not affect analysis if law in place at time of forfeiture)