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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT