People v. Shaver (In re Bail Bond)

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: 366780
• Decision Date: 23 May 2024
• Parties: In re FORFEITURE OF BAIL BOND. v. CRYSTAL SHAVER, Defendant, PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, and BAIL MY TAIL OF MICHIGAN, Appellant.

1

In re FORFEITURE OF BAIL BOND.

PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRYSTAL SHAVER, Defendant, and BAIL MY TAIL OF MICHIGAN, Appellant.

No. 366780

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 23, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2023-198949-AR

Before: GARRETT, P.J., and SERVITTO and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Bail My Tail of Michigan ("Bail My Tail"), appeals by leave granted^[1] the circuit court order denying its application for leave to appeal the district court order which had denied its motion to set aside a forfeiture and discharge of a bond. Bail My Tail also challenges the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the forfeiture and discharge bond. We vacate and remand.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant, Crystal Shaver ("Shaver"), was charged with two counts of assault and battery, MCL 750.81(1), and found guilty after a bench trial in the 46th District Court, in Southfield, Michigan. Shaver was sentenced to 45 days in jail and 24 months of probation. After failing to appear for a probation violation hearing, the district court issued a bench warrant for Shaver's arrest and set bond in the amount of $2,500. Bail My Tail, a bail bonds agency acting as Shaver's surety,^[2] posted the $2,500 bond. On October 24, 2022, Shaver again failed to appear in court. A show-cause hearing was scheduled to allow Bail My Tail to show good cause why judgment should not be entered against Bail My Tail for the full amount of the surety bond. Both Bail My Tail and Shaver failed to appear for the show-cause hearing.

On November 9, 2022, the district court entered a judgment after bond forfeiture against Bail My Tail in the amount of $2,500. On December 8, 2022, Bail My Tail apprehended Shaver and delivered her to the Southfield Police Department. Thereafter, on January 24, 2023, Bail My Tail moved to set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bond. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Bail My Tail failed to pay the forfeiture judgment within 56 days, as required by MCL 765.28(3).

Bail My Tail applied for leave to appeal in Oakland Circuit Court, arguing the district court erred by denying its motion to set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bond because payment of the judgment after bond forfeiture is not required under MCL 765.28(3) if the defendant is apprehended within 56 days, as Shaver was here. The circuit court denied leave to appeal. This Court granted Bail My Tail's later application for leave to appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"We review a trial court's decision regarding forfeiture of a bail bond for an abuse of discretion." In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 276 Mich.App. 482, 488; 740 N.W.2d 734 (2007), overruled on other grounds in In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich. 320; 852 N.W.2d 747 (2014). "[A]n abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Saffian v Simmons, 477 Mich. 8, 12; 727 N.W.2d 132 (2007). "Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that are reviewed de novo." In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich. 320, 325; 852 N.W.2d 747 (2014).

III. ANALYSIS

As it did below, Bail My Tail argues the district court erred by denying its motion to set aside the forfeiture and discharge the $2,500 bond, as payment of a judgment after bond forfeiture is not required under MCL 765.28(3) if the defendant is apprehended within 56 days, such is the case in this instance. Bail My Tail further argues that the circuit court erred in denying its appeal. We agree.

"[W]hen a criminal defendant fails to appear before the trial court, default shall be entered on the record, and after the default is entered, notice must be given to the surety that the criminal defendant failed to appear and that default on the recognizance has been entered." Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair Co, 314 Mich.App. 548, 553; 887 N.W.2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). "Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the full amount of the bail or surety bond." MCL 765.28(1). "If the surety is unable to show good cause for the criminal defendant's absence before the court, [MCL 765.28(1)] requires the court to enter a judgment against the surety for any amount up to the full price of the bail." Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 553.

"After the forfeiture judgment has been entered pursuant to MCL 765.28(1), a surety can have the judgment set aside and the money remitted, so long as certain requirements are met." Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 553-554. Under MCL 765.28(2):

Except as provided in subsection (3), the court shall set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bail or surety bond within [1] year from the date of forfeiture judgment if the defendant has been apprehended, the ends of justice have not been thwarted, and the county has been repaid its costs for apprehending the person. If the bond or bail is discharged, the court shall enter an order to that effect with a statement of the amount to be returned to the surety. [MCL 765.28(2) (footnote omitted).]

Subsection (3) states:

Subsection (2) does not apply if the defendant was apprehended more than 56 days after the bail or bond was ordered forfeited and judgment entered and the surety did not fully pay the forfeiture judgment within that 56-day period. [MCL 765.28(3)]

"MCL 765.28(2) and (3) provide a 'safe harbor' in which, if certain conditions are satisfied, a surety is entitled to a remittance of the forfeiture it paid." Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 555. If the conditions are met, the trial court does not have discretion on whether it grants relief, "the forfeited recognizance must be returned." Id.

The parties dispute the proper interpretation of MCL 765.28(3). Bail My Tail argues MCL 765.28(3) does not apply because Shaver was apprehended within 56 days after the entry of the forfeiture judgment. Plaintiff, the People of the City of Southfield, on the other hand, argues Bail My Tail is not entitled to relief because the forfeiture judgment was not timely paid.

The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the legislative intent that may reasonably be inferred from the statutory language. The first step in that determination is to review the language of the statute itself. Unless statutorily defined, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used.... When given their common and ordinary meaning, the words of a statute provide the most reliable evidence of its intent.... [Calvert Bail Bond Agency,

LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 550-551 (citation omitted).]

Here, the statute is clear and unambiguous. "MCL 765.28(3) renders MCL 765.28(2) inapplicable in instances in which the criminal defendant is apprehended more than 56 days after entry of the judgment of forfeiture and the surety has not paid the entire judgment within those same 56 days." Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 554 (emphasis added). "The Legislature's use of the word 'and' demonstrates that proof of both conditions is required." In re Estate of Koehler, 314 Mich.App. 667, 681; 888 N.W.2d 432 (2016). Under the plain language of MCL 765.28(3), then, a surety is not entitled to relief under MCL 765.28(2) where (1) the defendant was apprehended more than 56 days after the bail or bond was ordered forfeited and, (2) the surety did not fully pay the forfeiture judgment within that 56-day period.

In this case, the forfeiture judgment was entered on November 9, 2022. Shaver was apprehended and brought into custody on December 8, 2022, 29 days after the judgment was entered. Because Shaver was apprehended less than 56 days after the judgment the first prong of MCL 765.28(3) was not met. Because the first prong was not met, it is irrelevant whether Bail My Tail failed to pay the forfeiture judgment within 56 days of the judgment. Both conditions must be met for the exception to apply.

The exception set forth in MCL 765.28(3) being inapplicable, we turn to MCL 765.28(2). Under MCL 765.28(2), a trial court shall set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bond, when three conditions are met: (1) "the defendant has been apprehended," (2) "the ends of justice have not been thwarted," and (3) "the county has been repaid its costs for apprehending the person." MCL 765.28(2); Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC, 314 Mich.App. at 555. "The Legislature's use of the term 'shall' denotes mandatory action or direction." Wilcoxon v City of Detroit Election Comm, 301 Mich.App. 619, 631; 838 N.W.2d 183 (2013) (citation omitted). Thus, a trial court is required to set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bond if the three conditions are met. The parties do not dispute whether the first and third prongs of MCL 765.28(2) were met. Shaver was apprehended and there are no outstanding costs for Shaver's apprehension.

The parties do, however, dispute whether justice has been thwarted. Notably, "[t]his criterion is articulated in the past tense." In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond 229 Mich.App. 724, 729; 582 N.W.2d 872 (1998). "[T]he inquiry is not whether return of the bond to the depositor would result in the thwarting of the ends of justice. Rather, the inquiry is whether the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture of the bond and subsequent apprehension of the defendant have already thwarted the ends of justice." Id. "[W]hether 'the ends of justice have not been thwarted'...