Utah Case Laws
Click on the below to read Utah Case Laws for the following years:
2010
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Utah Case Law 2010
In Dixon Building, LLC v. Jefferson, 2010 WL 456764 (Utah App. February 11, 2010) a landlord sued to evict the tenant of leased property and for damages. The trial court ruled for the landlord and ordered that possession be turned over to the landlord unless a possession bond was filed. The tenant filed a bond from Bad Boys Bail Bonds, Inc. The bond was a bail bond guaranteeing appearance of one of the tenants. It did not say anything about possession of the property or payment of damages, but the landlord did not object to it. The trial court awarded damages to the landlord that exceeded the amount of the bond and ordered Bad Boys to pay the bond amount. Bad Boys appealed and the Court of Appeals held that the bond was clear and guaranteed only appearance. The trial court did not have the equitable power to re-write the bond and convert it into something else. Bad Boys’ liability was limited to the terms of the bond, and the obligation of the bond was fulfilled when the tenant appeared for the hearing. The Court reversed the judgment.are no case laws for this year.
Utah Case Law 2007
In Aaron and Morey Bonds and Bail v. Third District Court, 156 P.3d 801 (Utah 2007) the clerk mailed timely notice of forfeiture to the surety, but the notice did not include the prosecutor’s fax number as required by Utah Code section 77-20b-101(1)(b). The Court held that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient and, in the absence of prejudice from omission of the fax number, the surety was not discharged.
Utah Case Law 2006
Lee v. Thorpe, 2006 WL 3069513 (Utah October 31, 2006) held that Utah public policy permits a recovery agent licensed in another state to recover a defendant in Utah even though the recovery agent was not licensed in Utah. The defendant failed to appear to answer charges in Colorado. The recovery agent was properly licensed in Colorado but not in Utah where he located and seized the defendant. The defendant sued the recovery agent, bail agent and surety for a variety of torts including ones based on violation of the Utah Bail Bond Recovery Act. The Court held that the bail contract gave the recovery agent the contractual right to seize the defendant wherever located, and that contract barred any tort claim unless the contract was against Utah public policy.
The Court reviewed the background and public purposes of bail and recovery of fleeing defendants and held that public policy supported enforcement of the bail contract. The fact that the recovery agent was not licensed under the Utah Bail Bond Recovery Act was a matter between the enforcement authorities and the recovery agent, but it did not change the public policy favoring recovery of defendants and enforcement of the bail contract. The Court emphasized that the recovery agent had the qualifications and training to be licensed in Utah and that he was licensed under the comparable Colorado statute, which had very similar requirements. The Court affirmed the result reached by the Court of Appeals and reported as Lee v. Langley, 2005 WL 1831115 (Utah App. August 4, 2005).
Utah Case Law 2005
In Lee v. Langley, 2005 WL 1831115 (Utah App. August 4, 2005) the defendant failed to appear for criminal charges in Colorado and left the state in violation of the bond and of his contract with the surety. He was apprehended in Utah at his brother’s house by a recovery agent licensed in Colorado but not in Utah. The defendant and his brother sued the surety, bail agent and recovery agent for false imprisonment, assault and reckless endangerment. The trial court dismissed the false imprisonment claim. The Court of Appeals held that the recovery agent was not protected by the Utah Bail Bond Recovery statute because he was not properly licensed, but that his apprehension of the defendant was authorized under the contract between the defendant and the surety and so was lawful and could not form the basis of a false imprisonment claim. The jury found for the recovery agent on the other claims, and the bail agent and surety could not be liable if the primary actor was not liable.
Utah Case Law 2004
State v. Sun Surety Insurance Company, 99 P.3d 818 (Utah 2004) held that a bail bond surety did not have standing to appeal the trial court’s refusal to set aside forfeiture of the bond. The Utah Supreme Court thus vacated the Court of Appeals holding that the forfeiture should be vacated because notice of the forfeiture was mailed only to the bail agent and not to the surety. The Supreme Court held that only the criminal defendant and the State are parties to a criminal case with standing to appeal, but in a footnote it suggested that the proper method for the surety to raise its objections is by “extraordinary writ.”
Utah Case Law 2003
State of Utah v. Sun Surety Insurance Company, 2003 WL 21295845 (Utah App. February 27, 2003) held that the bail bond was exonerated because the notice of nonappearance was sent to the bail agent not the surety company as required by Utah Code Section 77-20b-101.
In State v. Cobos, 2003 WL 22361492 (Utah App. October 17, 2003) the surety filed a motion in the trial court to set aside entry of judgment against the surety and exonerate the bond. The trial court denied the motion and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. According to the Court, in Utah the surety can obtain review only as part of an appeal from the final judgment in the criminal case or by filing a petition for an extraordinary writ.