ILNews

COA: surety agency's lack of timely action justifies fines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s determination that a surety agency failed to comply with Indiana Code and is therefore liable for a deceased man’s bond.

On April 25, 2007, the state charged Manual Gaeta with eight counts of dealing in methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, each as a Class A felony, and set his bond at $500,000 surety. Two days later, the trial court reduced the bond to $250,000 surety. On May 7, 2007, Roche Surety & Casualty filed a surety bond in that amount guaranteeing Gaeta’s future appearances in court, and Gaeta was released on bond.
 
In February 2008, the trial court received information that Gaeta had fled to Mexico and issued an order for him to appear on Feb. 15. He failed to appear, and on Feb. 25, the court issued a warrant for his arrest and ordered Roche Surety to produce Gaeta, pursuant to Indiana Code section 27-10-2-12(a).

In Mauel Gaeta; Roche Surety & Casualty v. State of Indiana, No. 79A02-1011-CR-1196, Roche Surety appeals the trial court’s determination that it failed to comply with subsection (b) of Indiana Code section 27-10-2-12, claiming the court had misinterpreted the code.
 
Roche Surety claims the trial court’s decision, which cited Johnson v. State, 567 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), was incorrect because Johnson was decided before the statute was amended to its current version. The previous version of the code did not contain the language “within … 365 days.” Roche argued that amended code language in subsection (b) means it had 365 days to prove that the defendant’s appearance was prevented before incurring any penalty. The COA disagreed with Roche Surety’s claim.

The appeals court wrote that in Johnson, it held that compliance with subsection (b) applies to when the defendant is produced, or when proof of his inability to appear is made. It does not apply to the timing of the event that prevented his appearance. Therefore, in Gaeta, the appeals court held that the trial court had correctly interpreted the date that the bondsmen proved the client’s inability to appear, and accordingly correctly assessed the late-surrender fee.

Per Indiana code, the appeals court wrote, Roche Surety had a 120-day grace period to either produce the defendant or explain why he had not appeared in court. That grace period expired on June 24, 2008.

On Feb. 23, 2009, 364 days after notice was given, Roche Surety filed its motion of compliance, which stated that Gaeta was terminally ill and located in Mexico and that he was unable to travel. Attached to this motion were medical records dated Jan. 25, 2009, detailing Gaeta’s illness. Also attached was an affidavit from the recovery agent, stating she was retained by Roche Surety on July 16, 2008, and that, although she searched for Gaeta in numerous places in Mexico, she had only found him on Dec. 29, 2008. The appeals court wrote that hiring the recovery agent is the first evidence that Roche Surety had attempted to find Gaeta and that no information existed to show that it  had attempted to ask Gaeta’s family – who lived in Indiana – about his whereabouts.

Medical records that show Gaeta was admitted to a hospital in Mexico in April 2008 do not prove that his failure to appear in February 2008 was prevented by illness.
 
The appeals court therefore concluded that Roche Surety did not comply with Indiana Code section 27-10-2-12(b) within 365 days as required by subsection (d).
 
On cross-appeal, the state asserted that, because Roche Surety failed to comply with subsection (b)(2) within 365 days, Roche Surety is liable for the 80 percent late-surrender fee and forfeiture of 20 percent of the face value of the bond, pursuant to subsection (d). The appeals court agreed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment consistent with its opinion.

Gaeta died in August 2009.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT