Case Title: Holt Bonding Company, Inc. v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
HOLT BONDING COMPANY, INC. v. STATE of
Arkansas

96-1416                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 21, 1997


1.   Bail -- bond liability -- requirements for notification of
     surety strictly construed. -- Arkansas Code Annotated  16-84-
     201 (Supp. 1995) has been strictly construed; if the defendant
     is apprehended within 120 days from the receipt of written
     notification to the surety of the defendant's failure to
     appear, no judgment or forfeiture bond can be entered against
     the surety; mere substantial compliance with the terms in
     section 16-84-201 will not suffice. 

2.   Statutes -- statutory service requirements -- strict
     construction and exact compliance required. -- Statutory
     service requirements, being in derogation of common law
     rights, must be strictly construed and compliance with them
     must be exact; actual knowledge of a proceeding does not
     validate defective process. 

3.   Bail -- surety never received written notice of potential
     forfeiture -- State's failure to comply with statute
     reversible error. -- Where the prosecuting attorney's motions
     reflected no service on appellant, thus indicating the company
     had no written notice that the trial court was considering
     forfeiture of its bond, nor did the record reflect that the
     court met the time requirements called for in Ark. Code Ann.
      16-84-201(a), reversible error occurred from the State's
     failure to comply with the tenets of the statute; the case was
     remanded without prejudice. 


     Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court; Tom Keith, Judge; reversed
and remanded.
     Price Law Firm, by:  Robert J. Price, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly Terry, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     In 1993, Carl Ford was charged with theft, and while his
charges were pending, he was released upon appellant Holt Bonding
Co., Inc., having issued a $5,000.00 appearance bond.  Ford failed
to appear in court at a pretrial-status hearing on May 2, 1994, and
a show-cause hearing on June 6, 1994.  As a consequence, the
prosecuting attorney, on February 16, 1995, filed a motion to
forfeit Holt Bonding Company's bond, but the motion bore no
certificate of service on the Company.  On April 4, 1995, the trial
court ordered the bond forfeited.  
     On July 12, 1995, the prosecutor filed another motion (again
without a certificate of service), stating the bonding company had
failed and refused to forfeit Ford's appearance bond, and
requesting the trial court issue a summons for Holt Bonding Company
to show cause why the Company should not be held in contempt.  The
court set a show-cause hearing for that purpose on September 11,
1995.  Holt Bonding Company did not appear at the September 11
hearing, and on February 12, 1996, the trial court entered an order
again forfeiting the Company's bond in the sum of $5,000.00, and
specifying the order be entered as a judgment.  On March 21, 1996,
Holt Bonding Company moved to set aside the February 12 order,
claiming that the State failed to comply with Arkansas's law, Ark.
Code Ann.  16-84-201 (Supp. 1995), which establishes the procedure
on bond forfeitures.  On September 23, 1996, the trial court denied
Holt Bonding Company's motion, and the Company brings this appeal. 
     Holt Bonding Company's argument must be considered premised
upon the interpretation of  16-84-201 as that statute read in 1994
and April of 1995 because the appearance bond in issue here was
issued in December 1993, and the trial court's first order
forfeiting the bond was entered on April 12, 1995.  That prior
version of  16-84-201 in pertinent part provided as follows:
          (a)  If the defendant fails to appear for trial or
     judgment, or at any other time when his presence in court
     may be lawfully required, or to surrender himself in
     execution of the judgment, the court may direct the fact
     to be entered on the minutes, and shall issue an order
     requiring the surety to appear, on a date set by the
     court not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days after
     issuance of the order to show cause why the sum specified
     in the bail bond or the money deposited in lieu of bail
     should not be forfeited. 
                     *          *          *
          (c)  If the defendant is surrendered, arrested, or
     good cause is shown for his failure to appear before
     judgment is entered against the surety, the court shall
     exonerate a reasonable amount of the surety's liability
     under the bail bond.  However, if the surety causes the
     apprehension of the defendant, or the defendant is
     apprehended within 120 days from the date of receipt of
     written notification to the surety of the defendant's
     failure to appear, no judgment or forfeiture of bond may
     be entered against the surety, except as provided in
     subsection (e) of this section.
          (d)  If, after 120 days, the defendant has not
     surrendered or been arrested, prior to judgment against
     the surety, the bail bond or money deposited in lieu of
     bail may be forfeited.  (Emphasis added.)  
                     *          *          *
     First, we note the prosecuting attorney's motions filed on
February 16, 1995 and July 12, 1995, reflect no service on Holt
Bonding Company, thus indicating the company had no written notice
that the trial court was considering forfeiture of its bond.  Nor
does the record reflect the court met the time requirements called
for in  16-84-201(a).  In this respect, the record does not show
the trial court issued an order requiring Holt Bonding Company to
appear on a date set by the court not less than 90 days nor more
than 120 days after the issuance of the order to show cause why the
Company's bail bond should not be forfeited.
     As previously discussed, the initial April 4, 1995 order
forfeiting the Company's bond was entered without a show cause
order having been issued and directed to Holt Bonding Company.  We
also point out that the April 4, 1995 forfeit order was entered
only forty-seven days after the State filed its motion seeking bond
forfeiture.  Concerning the trial court's second bond forfeiture
order filed on February 12, 1996, the record shows that the State
filed its motion on July 12, 1995, asking the trial court to issue
a show-cause order on the Company, but after setting a hearing on
that order for September 11, 1995, Holt was given only three days'
written notice of the hearing, and that notice was by summons
served on John Holt, d/b/a Holt Bonding Company, rather than on the
corporation.
     The State concedes that the trial court's forfeiture orders
entered in this matter failed to meet the exact terms or
requirements of  16-84-201, however it asserts the procedures
followed and orders issued accomplished the statute's purpose. 
Citing Cornett v. Prather, 298 Ark. 108, 111,