In the case of State of Washington v. Sarah Marie Strong, Ace’s Bail Bonds LLC challenged the trial court’s decision to deny the return of a $5,000 bail bond. This case is significant in Washington bail bond law, focusing on bail bond forfeiture and the grounds for equitable relief when a defendant fails to appear in court. The Washington appellate court ultimately ruled in favor of Ace’s, ordering the bond to be returned based on equitable grounds.
Case Background
On August 7, 2019, Sarah Marie Strong was charged with second-degree burglary. Ace’s Bail Bonds posted a $5,000 bond to secure her release. When Ms. Strong failed to appear for a court hearing on October 11, 2019, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of the bond, giving Ace’s 60 days to either produce Ms. Strong in court or pay the bond.
After the forfeiture order, Ms. Strong contacted the court twice, in November and December 2019, stating that she was incarcerated in Montana. Despite this, Ace’s was required to pay the bond on December 9, 2019. In March 2020, the burglary charges against Ms. Strong were dismissed without prejudice, and her sureties were released from liability.
In August 2020, Ace’s Bail Bonds requested the return of the bond, but the trial court denied the motion, reasoning that Ace’s had not demonstrated any efforts to bring Ms. Strong to court prior to the forfeiture. Ace’s also filed for reconsideration, submitting additional evidence that Ms. Strong had been incarcerated. This motion was also denied, leading to an appeal.
Legal Analysis: Statutory and Equitable Relief
Ace’s argued that the trial court erred in denying the return of the bond, claiming they were entitled to both statutory relief and equitable relief.
Statutory Grounds
Under Washington law, RCW 10.19.090 authorizes the forfeiture of a bail bond if the defendant fails to appear in court. However, there are two key statutory provisions that may allow the bond to be recovered:
- RCW 10.19.105: If the defendant appears in court within 60 days of the forfeiture order, the bond can be released.
- RCW 10.19.140: If the defendant is produced in court within 12 months and the surety was directly responsible for their appearance, the bond may still be recovered.
In this case, Ms. Strong did not appear in court within the 60-day window, nor did Ace’s provide sufficient evidence that they were directly responsible for her return within 12 months. Although Ace’s later submitted evidence that Ms. Strong had appeared in court in October 2020, this information came after the trial court’s ruling and did not meet the statutory requirements.
Equitable Grounds
Although statutory relief was not granted, the appellate court found that Ace’s was entitled to equitable relief. Washington courts have established that equitable relief is possible when statutory grounds for exoneration are unmet but where the objectives of the bail bond have been fulfilled.
The State v. Molina decision allows for the return of a bail bond when a defendant is incarcerated in another state and fails to appear due to circumstances beyond their control. In this case, Sarah Marie Strong was incarcerated in Montana during the 60-day grace period. Washington courts, including State v. Adams and State v. Kramer, have held that when a defendant is incarcerated out of state and does not appear in court within the prescribed period, it is typically an abuse of discretion to deny the bond’s return.
Since Ms. Strong communicated her incarceration to the court within the 60-day period and was not evading court, the appellate court determined that Ace’s Bail Bonds was entitled to equitable relief. Despite the trial court’s denial, Ms. Strong’s situation indicated she was not deliberately avoiding court, and she could have been extradited back to Washington.
Court’s Ruling: Equitable Relief Granted
The appellate court concluded that while Ace’s did not meet the statutory requirements for bond recovery, the equitable factors weighed in their favor. Ms. Strong’s incarceration in another state and her communication with the court during the 60-day window satisfied the court’s equitable relief standards. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, ordering that the $5,000 bail bond be returned to Ace’s Bail Bonds.
Conclusion
The State v. Strong case illustrates the complexity of bail bond forfeiture and the importance of considering both statutory and equitable grounds for bond exoneration. In Washington, equitable principles can apply when a defendant’s failure to appear is due to circumstances beyond their control, such as out-of-state incarceration. For businesses like Ace’s Bail Bonds, understanding the distinction between statutory relief and equitable relief is crucial in pursuing the return of forfeited bonds.
If you are dealing with a bail bond forfeiture or need guidance on Washington bail bond law, Blanford Law is here to assist you with your legal needs. Our team can help you navigate both statutory and equitable pathways to recover bail bonds and ensure your rights are protected.
For other bail bond-related issues, here are some available articles:
- State v. Adams: Bail Bond Exoneration in Washington Law
Explore how bail bond exoneration is handled in Washington State, particularly in the case of State v. Adams. Readmore here. - Navigating the Complexities of Bail Bond Forfeiture: A Look at State v. All City Bail Bonds
This article delves into the intricate process of bail bond forfeiture, with insights from the State v. All City Bail Bonds case. Read more here. - 34 Frequently Asked Questions About Bail
Get answers to common questions about bail bonds, from procedures to legal requirements in Washington. Readmore here. - Navigating RCW 10.19.140: Understanding the Return of Bond to Surety in Washington State
Learn about Washington’s legal framework for returning bonds to sureties under RCW 10.19.140. Read more here. - Examining Automatic Exoneration of Bail Bonds: Insights from State v. French 88 Wn. App. 586 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)
A detailed review of automatic bail bond exoneration in the landmark case of State v. French. Read more here.
About Blanford Law:
At Blanford Law, we are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We pride ourselves on being great listeners rather than fast talkers. For more than 20 years, Ken has built his law firm on the belief that everyone deserves the best legal representation possible. He also strongly believes that every client deserves respect, without assumptions or preconceived notions.
If you or someone you know needs assistance with bail bonds or has been accused of a crime, or injured due to another’s negligence, Blanford Law can help. Call us at 253-720-9304 or email us at info@blanfordlaw.com. We’re here to support you in your time of need.