Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. ex rel. AAA Bail Bonds v. State
Docket: Nos. 4-385A72, 2-485A130
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; June 30, 1986; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Allied Fidelity Insurance Company and International Fidelity Insurance Company, Inc. provided bail bonds for co-defendants Harlan Dunbar and Frank J. Dean, totaling $7,500 and $5,000, respectively. After both defendants failed to appear at a court proceeding on February 8, 1984, the bonds were forfeited. The bonding companies filed petitions for extensions after the statutory 180-day period to produce the defendants had elapsed, claiming inadequate efforts to locate them. These petitions were granted without hearings.
On January 21, 1985, the court received a letter indicating that both defendants were in federal custody. Judgments of forfeiture were subsequently entered against Allied and International in February 1985, citing their failure to produce the defendants within the statutory timeframe. The bonding companies appealed, asserting that the defendants' absence was not due to their consent and sought to have the forfeiture judgments set aside based on the defendants' federal custody status.
The court affirmed the trial court's decisions, emphasizing that the bondsmen failed to meet the contractual obligations within the 180-day period, as there was no evidence they claimed the defendants were in custody during that time. Consequently, the bonding companies were required to satisfy the bond amounts as per the judgment.
The court addressed issues regarding the enforcement of a bail bond following the expiration of a 180-day period. After this period, the court issued stays of judgment entry, which did not modify the bond's terms. The trial court possesses the authority to grant stays to protect the bondsman's due process rights. Citing *State v. Elliott*, the court emphasized that while due process does not mandate a hearing in every case, it does require that a bondsman be afforded a meaningful opportunity for a hearing regarding their compliance with the statutory requirements. The court found no statutory language allowing the trial judge to extend the 180-day period, and questioned why such power would not extend indefinitely if it existed. The trial court’s judgments were upheld based on the bondsman’s failure to comply within the original 180 days. The bondsmen's appeal was deemed meritless. Additionally, the prior version of Indiana Code 35-4-5-12(b) and its amendments were discussed, confirming that regardless of any changes, the bondsman did not meet the compliance requirements within the specified timeframe, and the statute has since been repealed. The current version of the law can be found in Indiana Code 27-10-2-12.
