State v. Dakota Bail Bonds, 2024 S.D. 44

Dakota Bail Bonds (DBB), with United States Fire Insurance Company as surety, posted appearance bonds for two criminal defendants in South Dakota.
The criminal defendants did not fail to appear in court but violated other conditions of their release (e.g., no alcohol use).
The trial court ordered forfeiture of the bonds, interpreting state law (SDCL 23A-43-21) as requiring forfeiture for any material breach of release conditions, not just failure to appear.
DBB argued its bonds were strictly for appearance and did not guarantee compliance with other, non-appearance related release conditions.
The trial court denied DBB’s request to set aside the forfeiture and entered default judgment against DBB and its surety.
DBB appealed, and the State challenged DBB’s standing to appeal as a non-party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of bond obligation	Bond covers all release conditions	Bond only covers appearances	Bond only guarantees court appearance
Necessity of forfeiture for all breaches	Statute requires forfeiture for any	Only for non-appearance	Forfeiture not required if defendant
	material breach of release terms	violations guarantee	appeared; bond is appearance only
Judicial discretion to set aside forfeiture	Limited by statute	Court has discretion where	Circuit court should have set aside
		there’s no failure to appear	forfeiture under SDCL 23A-43-22
Surety’s right to appeal	Surety is non-party, cannot appeal	Surety is party to forfeiture	Surety has right to appeal under SDCL
		orders	15-26A-3(4)

State v. Krage, 404 N.W.2d 524 (S.D. 1987) (surety has right to appeal from default judgment on bail bond)
United States v. Barger, 458 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1972) (bail bond is a contract and terms are strictly construed)
United States v. Martinez, 613 F.2d 473 (3d Cir. 1980) (surety’s liability limited to express terms of the bail contract)