Williamsburg Nat'l Ins. Co D/B/A El Padrino Bail Bonds v. State
13-14-00647-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Williamsburg National Insurance Co. d/b/a El Padrino Bail Bonds (appellant/surety) issued bail bonds for different principals who failed to appear; the State sought forfeiture judgments against the surety in two separate causes (one for $1,000, one for $5,000).
- The State originally filed combined motions (default and summary judgment) and later abandoned them, then filed traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions in the Morales ($5,000) matter but unintentionally did not file that motion in the Bernal‑Mares ($1,000) matter.
- The trial court heard joint proceedings on the related cases, carried the cases together for briefing, and ultimately granted summary judgment in both matters.
- Appellant appealed raising four issues: (1) improper consolidation, (2) error in abating cases yet allowing State motions, (3) insufficient proof of service under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.05 and hearsay problems, and (4) lack of evidence principal was properly served.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded the Bernal‑Mares cause (due to the State’s failure to file the summary‑judgment motion there) and affirmed the Morales cause, finding adequate proof of citation and that several complaints were not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Appellant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Consolidation | Cases were not consolidated; matters were simply carried together for efficiency | Trial court consolidated and applied one set of facts across cases | No consolidation occurred; issue overruled |
| 2. Abatement / filing motions while cases abated | Court only "carried together" cases; State could file motions in those matters | Court abated cases and then improperly allowed State to file summary-judgment motions in abated cases | Appellant failed to timely object; issue not preserved; overruled |
| 3. Proof of service / compliance with art. 22.05 | Proof existed: citation mailed to address on bond and returned envelope showing attempted delivery; court could take judicial notice of file | Service evidence was hearsay and insufficient under art. 22.05 | Sufficient proof of citation under art. 22.05; hearsay objection not preserved; issue overruled |
| 4. Judgment granted without evidence principal properly served | State met burden in Morales by submitting bond and judgment nisi; summary judgment proper | No competent evidence that principal was served | In Bernal‑Mares, summary judgment was reversible because State failed to file the dispositive summary‑judgment motion there; reversed and remanded. In Morales, summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (granting summary judgment on issues not raised in motion generally reversible)
- Kubosh v. State, 241 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State bears burden in bond forfeiture; essential elements are bond and judgment nisi)
- Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (judgment nisi is prima facie proof that statutory requirements were satisfied)
- McCarter v. State, 442 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (bond forfeiture proceedings are criminal cases reviewed under civil appellate rules)
- Spears v. State, 381 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012) (defendant must affirmatively prove statutory requirements of judgment nisi not met or assert statutory defenses)
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (preservation rule: timely, specific objection required to preserve evidentiary complaint)
- In re C.S., 208 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (court may take judicial notice of its own files to show documents were filed and before the court)