aaronaaa.opn 

# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE JUNE SE SSION, 1997

ST ATE OF TE NN ES SE E, ) C. C.A. NO. 01C01-9608-CR-00348 ) Appell ee, ) DAVIDSON COUNTY ) ) HO N. J . RAN DAL L W YAT T, JR ., V. ) JU DGE ) AAA AARON’ S ACTI ON AGENCY, ) ( PETI TI ON FOR COURT ) APPROVAL TO WRITE Ap pella nt. ) BAI L BONDS)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : THOMAS L . WHI TESI DE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Att orneyat L aw Attor ney General & Reporter 172 Second Avenue Nort h Suit e 214 KATHY A. MOR ANTE Nashvil le, TN 37201-1908 Assist ant Attor ney General 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvil le, TN 37243 VIC TO R S . JO HN SO N, III Dist ri ct Attor ney General DA N H A MM Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General 200 W ashing ton Sq uare 222 Se con d A ven ue N orth Suit e 500 Nashvil le, TN 37201-1649 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GEaaronaaa.opn -2- 

# OPINION

AAA Aaron’s Act ion Agencyappeals as of r ightfrom the Davi dson Co unty Crimina l Co urt’s “O rder Gra nting Ap prov al to W rite B on ds un de r Sp ec ific Co ndition s.” The Appell ant argues one i ssue i n thi s appeal: W he the r t he Davidson County Cri minal Court, sitti ng en banc , was arbi tra ry and capri ciousin i mposing a req uirem ent th at Ap pella nt po st eithe r a D eed of Tru st t o unencumbered real e state located in Nas hville, Davidso n Co unty, Tennessee, or cash, certificate of dep osit, letter of credit, or other liquid a ssets b efore author izi ng Appell ant t o perf orm as a prof es sional bondsman. We affir m the judg m ent o f the trial c ourt.

The trial court’ s order reads as fol lows:
The peti ti oners propose t o pledge t he assetsof Ameri can Ba nk er’s I nsura nce C om pan y of Florida, the asse ts of which are locat ed outsi de the St ate ofTenn ess ee, as s urety tothe Courton bon ds wh ich are wri tt en by AAA Aaron’ s Acti on Agency Bai l Bond, Inc. und er a q ualifying pow er of a tt o rney i ssued by Ameri can Bankers. The Court recognize s thatthe petition ers h ave com plied with the re quirem ents an d con ditions of do ing bus iness a s a su re t y company author ized to execut e bonds as setout bythe Tennessee Departmentof Comm erce and Insurance Stat ute atT.C.A. § 56-15- 101, et. seq., particula rly T.C.A . § 56-15 -1 0 5. The Court notes, how ever, thatpursuantto T.C. A. § 40- 11- 30 2(b ) pro fes sio na l ba il bondsman, as defi ned at T.C. A. § 40- 11-301, are ex cluded f rom the lawsgoverni ng i nsuran ce companies and anyregul ati on by t he Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. T.C. A
. § 40 -11- 124 (a) an d R ule 3 5 of th e D avids on C oun ty Local Rules of Practi ce grant thi s Court authori ty t o determine which bonding companies shall be quali fi ed and approv ed to wr it e bonds in this co unty subjectto compl iance wi th t he requi rements and regu lations set for th by th e C ourt.aaronaaa.opn -3- In its Ord er of O ctob er 27 , 198 2, in the cas e of State of Tennessee v. Athens B ond ing Company, et al , No. 95 1, the C ourt dete rm ined that th e bo ndin g ca pac ityfor a bo nd ing com pa ny s ha ll be calcu lat ed year ly as the sum of A .) the cur ren t tax a sse sso r’s val uati on of pl edged property, multi pli ed by f our(4); a nd B.) cash pledged, multi pli ed by e ig ht (8). T he b ond ing c apa city rep rese nts the dollar limit of all bond s that a bo nding com pan y ma y pro per ly have pendi ng at one t ime. In the c ase of In re: In dem nity Ins uran ce C om pan y of N orth Ame rica , the Tennessee Suprem e Court recognize d that , ev en though an insu rance company has complied wit h stat utes requir ing posti ng of asse ts wi th t he Departmen t o f I nsurance, there is “ legal auth ority of l ocal c ourt s to requ ire pos ting o f add itional a sse ts to sec ure b ail bond obli gati ons of anyprof essional bondsman, insurance carrier or oth erwi se.”594 S.W.2d 705 at 708 ( Tenn. 198 0). Itis t heref ore, ORDE RED, ADJUD GED, and DECR EED that upon deli veryto t he Clerk o f the Crim inal Co urt of ei thera deed of trustto unencumbered real estat e locat ed in Davi dson C ounty, or cash, cert if icat e of deposi t, letterof creditor ot her l iqui d as se ts, petitioners sha ll be au thoriz ed a nd a ppro ved to write bail bonds for the Ge nera l Ses sion s an d C rimin al C ourt o f Da vi dson Cou nty, Tennessee, in acc ordan ce wit h the bondi ng capaci ty d escri bed above.
We fi nd thatthe t ri al court’ s judgment is notarbit rary and capri cious.

American B ankers I nsurance Company ofFlor ida has giv en Appell anta power ofatt orney and has agreed to guarant ee perf ormance on bonds und ertak en b y th e Appe ll ant up t o $500,000. The Appell ant has been
a p proved as b ail bo nd sm an in th irtee n co un ties an d th e F ed era l cou rts in Nashvil le. American Bankers Insurance Company has compli ed wit h the requi rements f or doi ng busines s in Tennessee. An insurance company whic haaronaaa.opn -4-

de als in t he areas t hatAm erica n B ank ers d eals in m ust h ave $20 0,00 0 of s urety on deposit . Tenn. Code An n. § 56 -2-1 04 . Th is money is on depositin Fl ori da.

The Appell ant argues thatthe D avi ds on Co un ty C rim ina l Co urt’s order is contraryto thi s court’ s ruli ng in the case of In re Dale R. Kell ey , C. C.A. No. 5, Henders on County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, Apr. 4, 1990), (no Rule 11 ap pli cati on fi l ed)

. Howe ve r, i n t hatcas e, our cou rthel d t hatth e He nderso n Co unty Circui t Court ’s pol icyli miti ng the bai l bond professi on to state approved insurance com pa nie s is a rbitra ry. T he Da viso n C ou nty C rim in al Cou rt rel ied upon it s en banc orderofOctober 1982 wherei n all bonding c ompanies (def ined
as anyenti ty o r i ndiv idual engaged in the busi ness of securi ng appearance bonds in the va rious cou rts of D avids on C oun ty) m ust c om ply with the b ond ing c apa city descri bed in t he orderappealed f rom in t he case sub judice
. In ot he r wo rds , this court cannot di scern t hatt he Crimi nal Courtof Davi dson County is t reat ing Appell antany di ff erent lythan anyother peti ti oner seeki ng to be approved to write bail bonds under si milar ci rcumstances.

Th is court m ore r ecentl y hel d in In re H itt , 910 S. W .2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) as fol lows:
A trial court has full auth ority to de term ine w ho s hou ld be allow ed to make bon ds in its cou rt. Gilbreath v . Ferg uson , 195 Tenn. 528, 260 S.W .2d 276 (1 953 ). . . . Furthe r, a trial court has the i nherentpower to a dmi nis ter its affa irs, in clu din g th e rig ht to im po se rea so na ble regul ati ons regarding t he making of bo nds
. Taylor v. W addey , 206 Te nn. 49 7, 334 S.W .2d 73 3 (196 0).
Id
. at 903- 04 (quot ing Hu ll v. State , 543 S. W .2d 611, 612 (Tenn. Crim. App. 197 6).aaronaaa.opn -5- The tr ial courtwas concerne d aboutcoll ecti ng in t he eventof a f inal forfeiture ifthe i nsurance co mpany stopped doi ng business in Tennessee or went outof b us ine ss. W e co nc lud e th at th is is a valid con cern on the part ofthe t ri al
cou rt. Therefore, t he requi rement ofa de ed o f trust or cas h, ce rtificate o f dep osit, lett erof credit, or othe r liquid asse ts to be he ld by the C riminal C ourt is no t arbitrary and ca pri cious. Because of the sound reasoning s et outabove i n the tri al cou rt’s o rde r, we find tha t the trial court ’s j ud gment is not ar bit raryand caprici ous.
The judgment ofthe t ri al court i s aff ir med.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Presi ding Judge

___________________________________ W ILLI AM M. BARKE R, Judge