Kansas Case Laws
Click on the below to read Kansas Case Laws for the following years:
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Kansas Case Law 2009
In State v. Dahmer, 2009 WL2242422 (Kan.App. July 24, 2009) the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. Before judgment was entered against the surety, however, the defendant was located and incarcerated in another state. Under amended K.S.A. §22-2807(3) that would be a defense The amendment became law on April 18, 2007, six days after the defendant failed to appear. The issue was whether the amended statute applied retroactively to bonds on which forfeiture had already been entered. The Court held that there was nothing in the amendment to indicate it should be given retroactive effect, and since it would impact a substantive right of the state, it would not be given retroactive effect in the absence of such an indication of legislative intent. Therefore, the judgment against the surety was affirmed.
In State v. Anguiano, 2009 WL 3082586 (Kan.App. September 25, 2009) the defendant failed to appear and the court forfeited the bond. The surety argued that the bond had been revoked on an earlier occasion when the court issued a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. The defendant’s release was subject to a number of conditions in addition to appearance in court. The Court held that the bond was strictly an appearance bond, and the defendant’s possible breach of other conditions was grounds to arrest him but not to revoke the bond. The surety argued that its risk was increased by new release conditions added without its consent after the bond was written. The Court held that the new conditions, that the defendant could live with his mother on an Indian reservation and that he undergo drug and alcohol evaluation, did not increase the surety’s risk. The Court affirmed the judgment forfeiting the bond.
Kansas Case Law 2008
In State v. Thammavong, 2008 WL 762507 (Kan.App. March 21, 2008) the surety posted a bond to release the defendant. Several months later, the defendant was arrested on a new charge, and the surety again provided a bond. Apparently as a result of the new arrest, the bond in the first case was revoked and a new bond required for an increased amount. The surety was not informed of the changes in the first case. The defendant failed to appear in the second case and the court entered judgment against the surety. The surety appealed. The Court agreed that a material increase of the bond’s risk without the surety’s consent discharges the surety, but in this matter there was no increased risk. The forfeiture was in the second case, and that bond was written after the increase in the bond in the first case. The surety could have checked the court record and learned of the actions in the first case, but in any event there was no change in the second bond’s risk after it was written.
Kansas Case Law 2007
In State v. Berges, 2007 WL 881865 (Kan.App. March 23, 2007) the defendant was arrested and a bond posted even though he had not yet been formally charged. In the criminal case, the defendant failed to appear, but the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to enforce the bond because when it was written there were no pending charges. The State did not appeal that decision. Instead, the State filed this separate civil case arguing that the bond was a contract and the surety could be sued civilly on that contract. The trial court thought the bond could not be enforced in a separate civil action and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court thought that even if there was no obligation under criminal law for the defendant to appear, he and the surety entered into a contract obligating him to appear, and they were subject to suit for breach of that contract just as in any other civil matter.
Kansas Case Law 2006
City of Dodge City v. Reyes, 133 P.3d 1291 (Kan.App. May 19, 2006) held that an appearance bond in connection with an appeal to the district court was valid even though the defendant did not sign it within the time required. The surety’s agent signed the bond on the proper form, and the court held that was sufficient.
Kansas Case Law 2005
State v. Sedam, 122 P.3d 829 (Kan. App. 2005) held that the appearance bond was discharged by a material change without notice to the surety or the surety’s consent. The defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. Three days later the defendant appeared in court and the court “reinstated” the bond and added a condition that the defendant be supervised by pretrial services. Part of such supervision was to report to pretrial services weekly and undergo drug testing. After giving a urine sample showing use of amphetamines, the defendant never came back. When he did not appear at the next court date, the bond was forfeited. The state argued that the addition of pretrial supervision benefited the surety, but the Court of Appeals thought the surety’s risk was increased by requirement of drug testing and more frequent appearances even though the ultimate forfeiture was for failure to appear in court. The Court held, “By reinstating a forfeited bond with new conditions with no notice to the surety, the court in fact rewrote the bond and gave the surety no opportunity to evaluate whether he wanted to assume the increased risk of forfeiture. Imposing a money judgment under such facts is an abuse of discretion.”
Kansas Case Law 2004
In State v. Burhans, 89 P.3d 629 (Kan. 2004) a bail bondsman was convicted of criminal trespass and assault for going on the bond principal’s sister’s property and threatening the sister’s husband, allegedly in an attempt to apprehend the principal. The court considered cases from other jurisdictions dealing with the rights of bail agents to enter property of third parties and concluded that it did not have to decide whether a reasonable belief that the principal was on the property would have justified the bondsman’s actions since, under the facts of the case, there was no basis to believe the principal was present.
State v. Ocampo-Navarro, 2004 WL 1609122 (Kan. App. July 16, 2004) held that the surety was discharged by a material alternation in the risk of the bond. As issued, the bond was conditioned on appearance and on the defendant not having contact with the alleged victim or others under the age of 18. Without notice to the surety, or obtaining its consent, the court added a condition that the defendant be subject to electronic monitoring of his location. He did not appear to have the electronic monitoring put in place, and the court forfeited the bond. He then did not appear for a preliminary hearing and the court forfeited the bond again. The state initially sought judgment against the bond for both forfeitures but eventually withdrew the request for forfeiture based on failing to appear for the electronic monitoring. Judgment, therefore, was entered only on the forfeiture for failure to appear at the preliminary hearing.
The Court of Appeals reversed and discharged the bond on the theory that adding the electronic monitoring requirement was a material change in the bond that increased the surety’s risk. The Court reasoned that since the additional condition could result in bond forfeiture it was material and increased the surety’s risk of loss. [Not published].
State v. Landes, 2004 WL 1683126 (Kan. App. July 23, 2004) held that the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to remit any part of a forfeited bond. The defendant was apprehended shortly after he failed to appear, but the surety and bail agent did not play any part in the apprehension. The trial court thought the bail agent should have done a better job of monitoring the defendant and his appearance obligations. The Court also refused to consider the bail agent’s argument that the judgment should have been only against the actual surety not the agent because the argument was not raised in the trial court. [Not published.]
Kansas Case Law 2003
In State v. Chukes, 2003 WL 23018243 (Kan. App. December 24, 2003) the bond was signed by the defendant as principal and by the bail agent as surety. There was no execution by an actual surety company although a power of attorney for the bail agent as agent for a surety company was attached. The appeal was from entry of judgment on the bond and an order refusing to set the judgment aside. The court held that the judgment (which was against the principal and the bail agent only) and refusal to set it aside were not abuses of discretion and so under Kansa law the judgment is affirmed as to the agent. The surety also purportedly appealed even though no judgment was entered against it and it was not a party to the case, and the court dismissed the surety’s appeal for lack of standing.