Click on the below to read Maryland Case Laws for the following years: In Barlow v. Safety National Casualty Corp<\/b><\/i>., 2012 WL 733863 (M.D.La. March 6, 2012) an indemnitor (the defendant’s mother) sued the surety, among others, alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and abuse of process under state law. Allegedly, the surety’s representatives contacted the indemnitor seeking indemnity for the bond forfeiture judgment even though the judgment had been set aside. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the bail bond transaction and related indemnity obligation were entered into primarily for personal, family or household purposes and so constituted a “debt” subject to the FDCPA. The plaintiff, however, failed to allege facts, as opposed to conclusions, that would support her FDCPA claim. The court dismissed the FDCPA claim with leave to amend. The court denied the motion as to the abuse of process claim because a state court suit had been filed even though it was rejected for procedural defects and not re-filed.<\/p>\n In Professional Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State<\/i><\/b>, Case No. 0638 (Md.App. March 31, 2009) the defendant fled to Honduras. The surety located the defendant there, but the defendant refused to return and no extradition treaty applied. The surety moved to strike forfeiture of its bonds and argued that it had shown reasonable grounds for not recovering the defendant. The Court explained that the case should be about the defendant not the surety, and there was no showing of reasonable grounds for the defendant’s failure to appear. The defendant willfully failed to appear and was still a fugitive. The trial court correctly denied the surety any relief.<\/p>\n Pantazes v. State of Maryland<\/i>,<\/b> 2003 WL 22453793 (Md. App. October 30, 2003) held that the court’s delay in forfeiting the bond was not grounds to grant the bail bondsman any relief. The defendant failed to appear for sentencing and the court “revoked” his bail status but did not enter an order forfeiting the bond. Some months later, the administrative judge corrected the error and entered an order forfeiting the bond and giving the surety 90 days to produce the defendant (by statute the 90 days is supposed to run from the date the defendant failed to appear, but the judge’s action foreclosed an argument that the belated forfeiture deprived the surety of its 90 days to recover the defendant.) The bail bondsman presented no evidence of his actions to monitor or recover the defendant. The court rejected arguments that prejudice resulted from the “cold” trail to find the defendant or that the “revoked” bond could no longer be forfeited. Maryland Case Laws Click on the below to read Maryland Case Laws for the following years: 2012 2009 2003 Maryland Case Law 2012 In Barlow v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 2012 WL 733863 (M.D.La. March 6, 2012) an indemnitor (the defendant’s mother) sued the surety,… <\/p>\n
\n2012<\/a>
\n2009<\/a>
\n2003<\/a><\/p>\nMaryland Case Law 2012<\/h3>\n
Maryland Case Law 2009<\/h3>\n
Maryland Case Law 2003<\/h3>\n
\nThe court then went on to lecture the bail bondsman that he was not a central party to the case which was really between the state and the defendant and that the bond was just a form of security posted by the defendant and that the business risk assumed by the bondsman was that the defendant would not appear in court. The defendant did not appear, and the court showed little sympathy for the bail bondsman’s attempts to escape the financial consequences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"