Minton v. Frank
| Decision Date | 13 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. B--5816,B--5816 |
| Citation | 545 S.W.2d 442 |
| Parties | Roy Q. MINTON et al., Petitioners, v. Raymond FRANK, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Clark, Thomas, Winters & Shapiro, John Coates and Barry Bishop, Austin, for petitioners.
Waggoner Carr and Robert L. Crider, Austin, for respondent.
This suit involves the construction of Article 2372p--3 Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes Annotated 1 which provides for the licensing and regulation of bail bondsmen. The suit was brought by Roy Q. Minton and Bob Kuhn, as licensed attorneys who represent clients in criminal cases, to obtain an injunction against Travis County Sheriff Raymond Frank from enforcing certain provisions of the Act. The trial court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment, and the court of civil appeals reversed. 531 S.W.2d 413. We reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined respondent from imposing certain provisions of Article 2372p--3 against the petitioners. The judgment further provided:
That as to plaintiffs Roy Q. Minton and Bob Kuhn, defendant Raymond Frank is enjoined from requiring security, including deposit of money, certificates of stock, certificates of deposit, deeds or deeds of trust for purposes of obtaining bail for their clients whom they actually represent, but this Order specifically requires compliance by the plaintiffs with the evidence of sufficiency of security provisions of Article 17.11, V.A.C.C.P.
The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Article 2372p--3 contained both licensing and regulating provisions, and that while attorneys were exempt from the licensing provision, all bondsmen, licensed or otherwise, were subject to the regulatory provisions of the Act.
Material provisions of Article 2372p--3 read as follows:
Requirements of license
Sec. 3 (a) No person may act as a bondsman without the license required under the provisions of this Act, except as provided in Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(b) Persons who are actually engaged in the practice of law and who are members of the State Bar of Texas who personally execute bail bonds or act as sureties for persons they actually represent in criminal cases may execute bail bonds or sureties without being licensed under this Act, but they are prohibited from engaging in the practives made the basis for revocation of license under this Act, and, if found guilty of violating the terms of this Act, may not qualify thereafter under the exception provided in this subsection.
(c) The provisions of this Act do not apply to the execution of bail bonds in counties having a population of less than 124,000 according to the last preceding federal census.
(d) Persons who execute bonds as cosureties with a licensed bondsman.
Examination of bondsman by any sheriff
Sec. 4. A sheriff may examine under oath any proposed bondsman, or an officer or attorney of any company proposing to execute a bond, as to the indemnity, if any, deposited or otherwise provided directly or indirectly against loss by reason of the bond, and may refuse to accept the bond if, in the exercise of his discretion, he is satisfied that the security is insufficient, any portion of the security has been feloniously obtained, or the provisions of this Act have been violated.
County bail bond board
Sec. 5. (a) There is hereby created in all counties having a population of 124,000 or more, according to the last preceding federal census a County Bail Bond Board.
(b) It shall be the duty of the County Bail Bond Board to set rules and regulations relative to the making of bail bonds by bondsmen within the county. No person may act as a bondsman unless he first obtains a license from the board unless exempted under the provisions of Section 3 of this Act.
Application and issuance of license
Sec. 6. (a) Any person desiring to act as a bondsman in any court of the county shall file with the County Bail Bond Board a sworn application for a license. The application shall be in such form as the board may prescribe, and shall set forth:
(1) The name and address of the applicant, and if the applicant shall be a firm or corporation, the name of each officer and director thereof and all of its employees actively engaged in processing the giving or making of bail bonds within the county;
(2) The name under which the business shall be conducted;
(3) The name of the place or places wherein the business is to be conducted;
(4) The list of nonexempt properties owned by the applicant and rendered on the tax rolls of the county, the same to be certified by the county tax assessor and collector of the county involved, along with a personal financial statement of the applicant;
(6) A statement that such applicant has not been denied or refused a license in the county during the past 12 months.
(b) The application shall be accompanied by letters of recommendation from three reputable persons who have known the applicant for a period of at least three years. Each letter shall recommend applicant as having a reputation of honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing, and competency and shall recommend that the permit be granted to the applicant.
(c) The application shall be accompanied by a fee of $500 for the filing of any original application.
(d) Upon notice from the board that the application has been tentatively approved, the applicant shall then:
(1) deposit with the county treasurer of the county in which his principal office is located a cashier's check, certificate of deposit, or cash in the amount of $5,000, to be held in a special fund to be called the bail security fund; or
(2) execute in trust to the sheriff of the county in which his principal office is located a deed to nonexempt real property of the value, as determined by the sheriff, of not less than $10,000, the condition of the trust being that the property may be sold to satisfy any forfeitures that may be made in bonds executed by him after such notice and upon such conditions as are hereinafter provided.
Refusal and revocation of licenses
Sec. 9. (a) No license may be issued to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc.
... ... Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.1979); Minton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1976). The legislative intent is determined through scrutiny of ... ...
-
Dickens v. Court of Appeals For Second Supreme Judicial Dist. of Texas
... ... Minton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1976); Ex parte Roloff, 510 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.1974); ... ...
-
Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
... ... Belo Corp. d/b/a The Dallas Morning News ... Frank C. Vecella, Charles L. Babcock, Michael Knapek, Jackson, Walker, Winstead, Cantwell & Miller, ... Cail v. Service Motors, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.1983); Minton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1976). Finally, the Court should give the statute a reasonable ... ...
-
Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp.
... ... State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.1979); Minton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1976.) Because Article 7.12 is a provision in the Texas ... ...