Missouri Case Laws
Click on the below to read Missouri Case Laws for the following years:
2011
2010
2008
2006
2005
2004
2003
Missouri Case Law 2011
In Cox v. City of Maryland Heights, Case No. 4:09-cv-852 (E.D.Mo. September 13, 2011) a bail agent and some of his employees sued the City and several law enforcement personnel. The plaintiffs were involved in seizing an indemnitor, along with the bond principal, and transporting him to the agent’s office. After alleged threats were made, the indemnitor’s mother paid the agent an amount allegedly owed. The defendant law enforcement officers investigated the matter and arrested the plaintiffs. One defendant made a statement to the local television station. Criminal charges were filed but later dismissed. The payment was returned to the indemnitor’s mother, and the City revoked the bail agent’s license. The suit alleged federal civil rights violations and state law claims. The court found probable cause for the arrests and dismissed the federal claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and also dismissed them without prejudice.
Missouri Case Law 2010
West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, 2010 WL 4282187 (Mo.App. November 2, 2010) was a wrongful death action filed following the death of the defendant’s brother in a confrontation with bounty hunters. The bond was a property bond not a surety bond, but the contract between the bail agent and the surety/managing general agent referred to bail bonds not explicitly to surety bail bonds. The trial court granted the surety and its managing general agent summary judgment, and the tort plaintiffs appealed. The issue was one of agency – whether the principal controlled or had the right to control the acts of the agent. The Court held that there were issues of fact and the trier of fact should decide whether the bail agency was the agent of the surety/managing general agent even though both parties to the contract testified it had no application to the property bond. The Court reversed judgment for the surety and managing general agent and remanded the case.
Missouri Case Law 2008
Peak v. Richardson, 2008 WL 762110 (E.D.Mo. March 19, 2008) held that two sitting Missouri Circuit Judges had judicial immunity from a suit by bail agents whom the judges had barred from writing bonds in the judges’ court on alleged grounds that the bail bond agents were not reputable as required by court rule. Even though licensing bail agents is generally within the jurisdiction of the Department of Insurance and the judges acted on hearsay without a hearing, their acts were judicial not administrative. The judges had immunity under Missouri law, and the case was dismissed.
Missouri Case Law 2006
Lass v. Wright, 2006 WL 1330984 (Mo.App. May 17, 2006) affirmed judgment on a promissory note. The defendant was convicted of second degree murder, and the court set bond at $1 million. The fee for the bond was $90,000, and the defendant’s father paid $2,000 and signed a note for the balance. Several months later, the court of appeals ruled that someone convicted of second degree murder was not eligible for release on bond, revoked the bond and incarcerated the defendant. The bondsman sued for the balance owed on the note, and the father counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. The father argued that the bond was illegal and so the note was not collectible. The Court noted that the bondsman was properly licensed and the defendant was released for several months. The Court refused to cancel the note and affirmed judgment for the bondsman.
In State v. Wilson, 202 S.W.3d 665 (Mo.App. 2006) the defendant was sentenced to nine years in prison but given thirty days to report. The bond was continued in effect. The surety was not present at the sentencing and was not asked to consent to continuation of the bond. The defendant failed to surrender to begin serving his sentence, and the bond was forfeited. The trial court denied the surety’s motion to set the forfeiture aside, and the surety appealed. The surety argued that its obligation was satisfied when the defendant appeared for sentencing and that releasing the defendant after imposition of sentence increased the surety’s risk. The Court held that under Rule 33.15 the bond continued in force until the condition of the bond was satisfied, the surety deposited the bond amount in cash, or the surety surrendered the defendant. It was up to the surety to monitor the status of the case and surrender the defendant of it no longer found the risk acceptable. Neither the Rule nor any statute terminated the bond upon entry of a guilty plea or imposition of sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the surety’s motion.
Missouri Case Law 2005
In State v. Carroll, 2005 WL 1563084 (Mo. App. July 6, 2005) the defendant failed to appear but the bail agent located him in jail in Georgia and had the Sheriff enter the warrant in the N.C.I.C. system. In due course, the Georgia authorities informed the Sheriff that the defendant could be picked up, but the Sheriff did not tell the bail agent. Instead, the Sheriff sent two deputies to bring the defendant back to Missouri at a cost of $2,988.59. The Court refused to forfeit the bond, but ordered the surety to pay the $2,988.59. The surety appealed and the Court of Appeals reduced the amount to the $584.40 that the bail agent testified it would have cost him to go to Georgia and bring the defendant back. The applicable Missouri statute, §374.200.2, provides that the bail agent shall have the “first opportunity” to return the defendant incarcerated in another state and if unable to do so shall pay the cost for the State to return him.
Missouri Case Law 2004
In American Western Bonding Company, Inc. v. United Surety Agents, Inc., 2004 WL 627996 (Mo. App. March 31, 2004) a bail agent sued a managing general agent to recover a buildup fund. The trial court held that (1) the MGA properly paid a bond forfeiture from the fund, (2) the agent was not entitled to damages for alleged mismanagement of the fund, (3) the agent was not entitled to punitive damages, and (4) the agent was entitled to the money held in the fund. Since neither party knew the exact amount, no judgment was entered for a sum certain. The parties could not agree on the amount (the MGA claimed it could subtract litigation costs) and the trial court entered an “amended” judgment for the amount in the fund without reduction for the litigation costs. The MGA appealed claiming that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to “amend” the judgment. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the first judgment was not final and could be modified, and affirmed the modified judgment.
Missouri Case Law 2003
State of Missouri v. Angela M. Cook, 104 S.W.3d 808, 2003 WL 21153484 (Mo. App. May 20, 2003) held that the bail agent had apparent authority to appear for the surety at a forfeiture hearing.