| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| So You Want To Bail Out The Famous http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=12733 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | tsuggs [ Fri 06 Jan 2012 20:49 ] |
| Post subject: | So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
http://www.ksby.com/news/local-bail-bon ... -wife-evi/ |
|
| Author: | BondgirlCA [ Fri 06 Jan 2012 21:10 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
Hate to be that bondsman..... |
|
| Author: | NYPD BLUE [ Sat 07 Jan 2012 08:43 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
I would not have touched that bond without Collateral.. ? What the hell were they thinking doing such huge bonds without taking any ? |
|
| Author: | SURETYRISKMANAGEMENT [ Sat 07 Jan 2012 19:09 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
Nice! Better them than me... |
|
| Author: | tsuggs [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 01:38 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
http://www.independent.com/news/2012/ja ... 1-million/ More details of the story. |
|
| Author: | SURETYRISKMANAGEMENT [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 01:49 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
Now that is one HUGE summary judgment! I wonder if that bail bond company is still in business after taking that hit. |
|
| Author: | tsuggs [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 01:52 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
I may be able to find out later, as I write for the same surety, ASC. Also, I am sure they will appeal the SJ, so this may be another year or two before it becomes final. |
|
| Author: | Mdbtyhtr [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 06:22 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
How can they increase the bond and allow that bond to be posted when the initial FTA warrant was never served and the subjects were not in custody? This makes no sense to me. As far as collateral, the couple may have posted property that was in foreclosure leaving the insurance company holding nothing. I am quite sure that bonds this large had to be vetted through an underwriting process that satisfied the insurance company prior to being posted, but that is just an assumption on ky part. Scott |
|
| Author: | tsuggs [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 11:31 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
If they had a private attorney, under a waiver of appearance, the attorney could have petitioned the court to allow the new bail amount to be posted without the defendants being in custody or even in court. If the Quaids were actually in custody in Canada at the time of the bail hearing, under CA Penal Code Section 977 various subsections, they could have agreed to the higher bail amounts. Also, the bail agent must have been at that hearing or at least should have been and agreed to post the new bonds. So, I think the surety is screwed in this case. Probably thinking too much about the $100k premium and not at the potential $1M forfeiture. |
|
| Author: | SURETYRISKMANAGEMENT [ Sun 08 Jan 2012 14:12 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So You Want To Bail Out The Famous |
That's a bummer for the Bail Bond Company and the Surety Company. What a hit to take! Do you think that was just a poor judgment call? That's the feeling that I'm getting. The Bail Bond Company should have secured those bonds with some serious, verified collateral. Sounds to me like they "jumped the gun" when they wrote those bonds. It pays huge dividends to be diligent in all of our efforts. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |