Castaneda v. State, s. 13-99-732-CV

• Decision Date: 31 August 2001
• Docket Number: Nos. 13-99-732-CV,s. 13-99-732-CV
• Citation: 55 S.W.3d 729
• Parties: (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001) OCTAVIO CASTANEDA, D/B/A O. CASTANEDA'S BAIL BONDS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE. to 13-99-736-CV
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 729

55 S.W.3d 729 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001)

OCTAVIO CASTANEDA, D/B/A O. CASTANEDA'S BAIL BONDS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

Nos. 13-99-732-CV to 13-99-736-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi

August 31, 2001

On appeal from the Jail Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

Before Justices Dorsey, Castillo, and Cantu¹

OPINION

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

This group of cases involves, essentially, one issue. That is, "Is a bail bondsman liable on the bond when the principal is deported prior to the time the principal is set to appear in court?" We hold that where the bail bondsman assumes the risk that the principal will be deported, as here, he is liable on the bond.

This case involves five bail bonds issued by Castenda's Bail Bonds Co. Four of them contained the express notation,

Principal is in violation of Code of Federal Regulations Title "8" C.F.R. Section 315(3) and (4) I.N.S. Pursuant to new law, will be taken into custody by: I.N.S. to Los Fresnos, Texas.

The notation was conspicuously located on the bail bond forms, and was typed in all capital letters.

After the bonding company issued the bonds, the principals were detained by I.N.S. and, ultimately, deported. The principals, obviously, did not then show up in court according to the terms of the bonding agreement. Upon the States' motion, the bonding company was held liable to pay the full amounts of the bonds because the principals failed to appear. The bonding company raises various arguments why it should not be held liable on the bonds. We are not persuaded by these arguments.

First, the bonding company argues, that the fact that the government did not actually release the principals invalidates the bonding agreement in its entirety. Under article 22.13(a) of the code of criminal procedure, a surety may be exonerated for forfeiture liability when a "bond is, for any cause, not a valid and binding undertaking in the law." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 22.13(1) (Vernon 1989). This argument has been addressed by this Court before. See Reyes v. State, 31 S.W.3d 343, 345-46 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.). In Reyes, we held that the government's failure to release the principal relates to the performance of a bail bond and not to its validity. Id. Thus, the surety is not exonerated. We overrule this argument.

Next, the bonding company argues that the State, by deporting the principals on the bonds, impermissibly increased the risk assumed by the bonding company after the bonds were already made. Because these bonds contained language indicating that the bonding company expressly assumed the risk that the principals would be deported by I.N.S., we disagree.

"A 'bail bond' is a written undertaking entered into by the defendant and his sureties for the appearance of the principal . . . before some court or magistrate to answer a criminal accusation . . . ." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.02 (Vernon 1977). As such, a bail bond is a contract between the surety (the bonding company) and the State. Reyes, 31 S.W.3d at 346. The contract consists of a promise by the surety that the principal will appear before the court in exchange for a promise by the State that it will release the principal. Id.

The United States Supreme Court has noted that:

There is . . . an implied covenant on the part of the government, when the recognizance of bail is accepted, that it will not in any way interfere with this covenant between them, or impair its obligation, or take any proceedings with the principal which will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedy against him.

Reece v. United States, 76 U.S. 541, 511, 9 Wall. 13 (1869). Thus, as a general rule, if the government has taken a unilateral action that will increase the surety's risk on a bond or make it impossible for the bondsman to produce the principal in compliance with the terms of the bond, the government cannot enforce the forfeiture of the bond against the surety. Id. However, in this case, the inclusion on the bond forms themselves of language indicating the principals were then subject to I.N.S. proceedings indicates that the bonding company voluntarily assumed the risk that the principals would be deported. Under basic rules of contract interpretation, we give terms their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument shows that the parties intended otherwise, and we presume that the parties to a contract intended every clause to have some effect. Ogden v. Dickinson State Bank, 662 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. 1983); Western Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 152 Tex. 559, 261 S.W.2d 554, 557 (1953). We hold that inclusion of that language indicates that the risk of deportation was a part of...