Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/bond/
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 13:25:02
Document Index: 491431017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§16', '§16', '§16', '§16', '§16', '§16']

bond - CBA CLE Legal Connection
Tenth Circuit: Federal Appellate Rules Provide for Bond Only for Costs Allowable by Rule or Statute
January 19, 2015 By Susan Hoyt 1 Comment
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Tennille v. Western Union Co. on Monday, December 22, 2014.
Plaintiffs initiated a class action against Western Union based on Western Union’s retention of funds from failed wire transfers. After several years of litigation, plaintiffs and Western Union settled the case. The district court preliminarily certified a class of more than one million customers who experienced a failed wire transfer between January 1, 2001 and January 3, 2013, and ordered the class administrator to notify those class members of the class action, the proposed settlement, and the opportunity for them to opt out of the class or to object to the settlement. Several class members objected. The district court overruled all objections, certified the class, approved the settlement, and entered final judgment. Objectors Dorsey and Nelson appealed the district court’s denial of their objections. Plaintiffs asked the district court to require Dorsey and Nelson, as a condition of their appeal, to post a $1,007,294 appeal bond—$647,674 to notify class members of Objectors’ merits appeals challenging the settlement, $334,620 as administrative costs to maintain the settlement agreement pending Objectors’ appeal, and $25,000 as costs for printing and copying and preparing a supplemental record. The district court granted plaintiffs’ request, and Objectors appealed.
The Tenth Circuit first addressed plaintiffs’ contention that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, since the bond order was not a final, appealable order. The Tenth Circuit determined it had jurisdiction over the appeal on at least two bases. The district court’s bond order was entered “in aid of appellate court jurisdiction,” and since the Tenth Circuit has jurisdiction to review Objectors’ merits appeals, it also has jurisdiction over the bond appeal. Second, the district court’s bond order was a final order ending the post-judgment bond proceeding, and as such the Tenth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Moving to the bond itself, the Tenth Circuit found unanimous circuit precedent allowing Rule 7 cost recovery only for costs expressly provided for by rule or statute. Because no rule or statute provides for costs for notifying class members or administrative costs, the district court erred in allowing those costs. The Tenth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the district court has discretion to include in an appeal bond any cost a defendant may encounter in defending an appeal. The Tenth Circuit characterized plaintiffs’ argument as seeking damages for the delay caused by Objectors’ merits appeal, but noted the Federal Appellate Rules do not have separate provisions for class actions and the purpose of a Rule 7 bond is not to compensate for damages.
Next, Objector Dorsey challenged the district court’s imposition of a $25,000 bond to cover costs of preparation and transmission of the record. Plaintiffs failed to justify the need for $25,000. Because Objector Dorsey suggested he would be amenable to imposition of a $5,000 bond to cover such costs, the Tenth Circuit reduced the bond accordingly. Objector Nelson claimed she would experience hardship from the imposition of any bond, but the Tenth Circuit found that a $5,000 bond is not so burdensome as to deprive her of due process or equal protection of law, and found that she failed to establish that the smaller bond would deprive her of due process.
The district court’s bond imposition was affirmed, but the bond was reduced to $5,000. Objectors were ordered to post the bond within 14 days or their merits appeals would be dismissed.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, appellate law, bond, Federal Appellate Rules, litigation
Colorado Court of Appeals: Statutory Language Deprived Court of Appeals of Jurisdiction in Bond Revocation Case
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Jones on Thursday, September 11, 2014.
Bond—Revocation—Petition for Review—Jurisdiction.
In this felony case, the trial court set bond for defendant. He posted the bond, and the jail released him from its custody. While he was free on bond, a second court found that there was probable cause to believe that he had committed another felony. Based on that finding, the trial court revoked his release on bond in this case, and it ordered that the jail hold him without bond until this case was resolved. Defendant filed a petition for review in this court.
The prosecution argued that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over defendant’s petition for review. Defendant filed his petition for review relying on CRS §16-4-204(1), which authorizes review of trial court orders issued under CRS §§16-4-104, -107, and -201. Here, the prosecution’s motion to revoke defendant’s bond relied on CRS §16-4-105(3), which is not mentioned in CRS §16-4-204(1). Because it is not mentioned, a defendant cannot seek appellate review of an order issued under CRS §16-4-105(3) by filing a petition for review under CRS §16-4-204(1). Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over defendant’s petition for review, and the appeal was dismissed. Defendant may, however, seek the Supreme Court’s discretionary review of the trial court’s order under CAR 21.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: bond, Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado Revised Statutes, criminal law, criminal procedure, jurisdiction
HB 12-1316: Modifying Bond Recovery Procedures for Defendants Who May Be in the Country Illegally
On February 22, 2012, Rep. Amy Stephens introduced HB 12-1316 – Concerning Bond Conditions when a United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Detainer is Lodged Against a Defendant. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
Under current law, if there is probable cause to believe that a defendant is in the country illegally and he or she is charged with a felony or class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor, the investigating law enforcement agency shall notify the defendant’s bail bond agent. The bill requires notification to a person’s bail bond agent if there is a United States immigration and customs enforcement detainer lodged against the defendant; rather than based on probable cause to believe that a defendant is in the country illegally and a person is charged with a felony or a class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor.
Under current law, a bail bond agent is exempt from having his or her bond forfeited if the defendant is removed from the country, and a bail bond agent is not required to sign a waiver of understanding concerning such forfeiture. The bill requires a bail bond agent to execute a waiver that states he or she understands that if the defendant is removed from the country the bond is forfeited. The bill also requires the bond of the bail bond agent to be forfeited if the defendant is removed from the country.
If a law enforcement agency holding a defendant for a felony or class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor determines that a United States immigration and customs enforcement detainer is lodged against the defendant, the law enforcement agency shall notify the district attorney and any pretrial services agency of the defendant’s presumed immigration status. If the defendant posts bond, the law enforcement agency shall notify the district attorney of the posting of the bond prior to notifying immigration and customs enforcement that the defendant is eligible for release to their custody.
Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: bond, Colorado Legislature, criminal law, criminal procedure, HB 12-1316, immigration law