Court Opinion

ID: 9856891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:04:50.937445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:31.182397
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order denying surety’s petition to remit forfeiture of the bond, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Our Rules of Civil Procedure require the trial court, at a minimum, to “make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions upon the contested matters. A finding of such essential facts as lay a basis for the decision is sufficient.” State v. Rakina and State v. Zofira, 49 N.C. App. 537, 540-41, 272 S.E.2d 3, 5 (1980), disc. review denied, 302 N.C. 221, 277 S.E.2d 70 (1981) (citation omitted); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (1999).
In my opinion, the trial court’s findings in this case are primarily statements of the disposition of this case, not findings of fact on the disputed issues. Indeed, the trial court made only two relevant “findings of fact”: (1) “The defendant has not been surrendered by the surety and has not otherwise been apprehended”; and (2) “The surety has made extensive efforts to apprehend the defendant as set forth in the verified petition and his testimony. Those efforts have been unsuccessful.” Based on those scant findings, the trial court “conclude[d], in its discretion, that the Surety’s Petition should be denied.”
The majority opinion states:
In the case before us, the trial court found that petitioner, despite his efforts, was unable to secure the appearance of Robinson in *664Granville County Superior Court, which is the primary purpose of the bond system. The trial court’s finding of fact supports its conclusion of law that petitioner be denied remission of the $40,000 bond.
This conclusion implies that the sole and determinative factor in the “justice requires” analysis under G.S. § 15A-544(e) is whether the surety is able to procure the appearance of the defendant. I disagree with that implication.
While the recovery of a defendant who has “jumped” bail is important and a defendant’s appearance is the ultimate goal of the bond system, it should not be the sole determinative factor in deciding whether to remit a bond forfeiture under G.S. § 15A-544(e). For instance, in State v. Horne, 68 N.C. App. 480, 315 S.E.2d 321 (1984), the trial court made fourteen extensive findings of fact, which were not challenged by the appellants. Instead, the appellants there challenged the trial court’s conclusion that there was no meritorious defense for the remission of any of the judgment. On review, this Court concluded that “[t]he facts as found do not compel the conclusion that ‘justice requires’ the forfeiture be remitted in whole or in part.” In contrast, the surety in the instant case does not challenge the scant findings made, but instead contends that there were inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Furthermore, State v. Vikre, 86 N.C. App. 196, 356 S.E.2d 802 (1987), is inapposite in that it involved remission under G.S. § 15A-544(h), and thus involved application of the “extraordinary cause” standard instead of the “justice requires” formula.
In summary, I believe this matter should be remanded to the trial court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. I offer no opinion on the issue of whether “justice requires” remission in the instant case, but believe that there were inadequate findings of fact to support the trial court’s conclusion denying remission on the basis that justice did not so require.