| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| RUMOR OR TRUTH http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=995 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | L.A.W. [ Sun 21 Aug 2005 13:09 ] |
| Post subject: | RUMOR OR TRUTH |
I received a call from a BEA I've know who lives in California and travels extensively to Hawaii. He said Mr. Chapman and his 'woman' are being sued because they were revoking bails for the camera in lieu of not having have any bail skips pending. It is alleged they were using the excuse the person on bail missed a call-in. What do you think? |
|
| Author: | DMARTZ [ Sun 21 Aug 2005 19:53 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can see a bonding company not having any skips for a show that has been running for a year. We have a company that has had only 4 skips this year wouldn't make for a long running show. When i quit writing paper i was on an80/20 deal but i was liable for 80% our contract included the call in every week clause and if they missed a call i revoked the bond and picked their ass up no excuses. The defendent was well informed as to the contract he was signing. Now if the Chapmans have lied about the call in's they need to have their ass's sued. |
|
| Author: | L.A.W. [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 05:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is no telling what is the truth or rumor with Mr. Chapman. |
|
| Author: | rex [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 10:02 ] |
| Post subject: | Return Of Premium |
Notwithstanding Hawaii, California law allows for all premium paid on a bond to be returned to the person who paid it, at the court's discretion, if good cause cannot be shown for the bail surrender(1). But, misrepresented or concealed information is considered good cause, and it is required to inform the defendant of his or her rights to have the premium returned(2). However, I'm not aware of any California reference that specifically states that not calling or missing call ins as being reasonable justification. This past week, for example, I got an emergency call from a client whose client was selling off assets and stated that he was headed for Mexico. After picking my client's client up, he was very clear about his intentions to leave the country. I found this to be good cause for the bail surrender, and I doubt the court will order the return of the premium. Frankly, I do not require bail clients to call in. As for Mrs. Chapman, I would encourage her to research Fraud laws for her state for more information. Rex References: (1) CPC 1300(b) (2) Title 10 Section 2090 |
|
| Author: | EliteBailBoyz [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 10:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am sure if it were true it would be posted in the newspapers all over the world, just like everything else "Dog" Does! |
|
| Author: | Kathy [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 10:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Colorado law allows us to revoke a bond for pretty much any reason, and only allows a judge to order the premium returned for very limited causes. We can put any supplemental conditions on the bond that we want, and if it is a condition of the bond or the agreement for the person to call in, we have a right to revoke if they don't. I only require call-ins for people that I am concerned about keeping track of and those are very few. I don't revoke for failure to call unless I have reason to suspect they are about to run. Our most common revokes are done for failure to finish paying the bond premium or flight risk based on information we receive from a cosigner or other sources. It is an automatic violation of the bond if the person is arrested for allegedly commiting another crime while on bond. It depends on the circumstances and the person if we will revoke on that. |
|
| Author: | DMARTZ [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 10:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kathy, Indiana has one of the best laws on bond premiums. Check it out. 27-10-4-5 Failure to collect premium on bond A bail agent who knowingly or intentionally executes a bail bond without collecting in full a premium for the bail bond, at the premium rate as filed with and approved by the commissioner, Commits a Class D Felony |
|
| Author: | Kathy [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 11:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
David, I would LOVE to see a law like that passed here. The law allows us to charge a maximum of 15%, but it's hard to get it in many locations and almost impossible on anything over $5K. One particular bondsman started undercutting everyone else and the rest had to follow suit to get any business. He will also take practically nothing down, sometimes not even covering his costs. I will take payments on limited cases, but try to avoid it if I can and will never take anything less than my costs plus a little. This person and his family would rather try to run everyone else out of business than to make more money writing bonds. This person has a high number of skips (wonder why?) and has been barred from posting bonds in one county because of it. This was a small court and the judge ordered the sheriff to stop allowing this company to write because they had 12-15 skips a month and it was backing up the court dockets. Most of the calls we get are wanting us to "bid" on a bond and they get mad if we won't do it for free. Or they want to give us a car title to hold instead of paying anything. When I explain that we have expenses and have to pay bills, too, it insults them. I got a call on an $8K bond this weekend. I quoted 10% with $500 down (all they had was $300). Another person called my boss on the same bond and he quoted 6%. That person got very angry because he wouldn't go less. He saw another bondsman at that jail later and asked if he did it for the $300. The bondsman said yes, and he didn't make anything off of it. I guess not since that's 3.75% and the average cost to a bondsman is about 3%. This same bondsman has an employee that took a $2,000 postdated check on a $20K bond. Last I heard, the person wasn't going to be able to cover it. This is the stupidity caused by inexperienced bondsmen and cutthroat competition. The state keeps adding regulations on us, but they haven't done what really needs done, forcing bondsmen to charge reasonable rates, collect the premium, get proper collateral and reduce the number of skips. More courts need to do what the one did and stop these guys from writing when they have so many FTA's. We used to do some BE work for that company and it's not unusual for them to get 30-50 skips a week. Some day it will catch up with them. Kathy |
|
| Author: | rex [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 14:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kathy, I got shell-shocked (businesswise) when a certain corporation came in with the same type of pattern. As a one-man-shop, I simply could not compete with such underwriting. Before long, I was fielding calls wherein people wanted to know what was the "best deal" I could offer. Well, I had to retreat, learn how to be a manufactured salesman over the phone and bounce back. It wasn't easy, but I did it. Rex |
|
| Author: | HoundDog [ Mon 22 Aug 2005 20:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
We refuse to back of and make deals here in Arkansas. Of course some Bonding Companies write credit without attempting to collect. It is illegal here to discount a Bail Bond but, prove the Bonding Company discounted when they document a balance due but, never collect. I would love to see a law here similar to Indiana. Back to the original point of Bail revocation. It has been pointed out to me that you may be violating someones rights by revoking a bond for non-payment of a premium. We are not allowed to surrender for non-payment, the courts look at it as you should have collected all of your money up front. Holding someone hostage to a payment may be illegal if a smart attorney takes a hard look at it. This is of course just my opinion. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |