State v. Ward, 77-179

Decision Date01 February 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-179,77-179
Citation53 Ohio St.2d 40,372 N.E.2d 586
Parties, 7 O.O.3d 124 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WARD, Midland Insurance Company, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Appellant, Midland Insurance Company, is surety on a bail bond issued in the amount of $2,500. The bond was posted by one Charles Ward who plead guilty to an indictment charging him with grand theft. The plea was entered in July 1975. In September 1975, Ward failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing and the bond was revoked. In December 1975, the trial court entered the following order:

"This 19th day of December, 1975 the court finds that the defendant herein entered a plea of guilty as charged in the indictment and was thereby convicted as to count No. 2 of the indictment on July 16, 1975. The court further finds that on September 8, 1975, a judgment entry was filed revoking the defendant's bond for the reason that the whereabouts of the defendant was unknown and said defendant was unable to be located for the purpose of sentencing. At the same time, the court issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant.

"The court further finds that judgment in the amount of $2,500.00 should be awarded in favor of the State of Ohio and against Charles Ward, defendant herein, and the Midland Insurance Company.

"It is therefore ordered that judgment be awarded in favor of the State of Ohio and against the defendant Charles Ward and against the Midland Insurance Company, surety herein, in the sum of $2,500.00. It is further ordered that the surety herein shall produce the body of the said defendant within 20 days of this date or said judgment shall be final."

The appellant failed to find Ward within the 20-day time period, but Ward was apprehended in February 1976 and sentenced in April 1976. In July 1976, appellant filed a motion to vacate the order of forfeiture entered by the trial court. That motion was overruled and, upon appeal, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.

David E. Bowers, Pros. Atty., and Richard K. Warren, Lima, for appellee.

Britz & Zemmelman and Harland M. Britz, Toledo, for appellant.


All of appellant's propositions of law relate to the procedure employed by the trial court in awarding judgment in favor of the state in the amount of the bond. Appellant urges that the provision of R.C. 2937.36, requiring notification of the surety on a bail bond to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it, following forfeiture, is mandatory; that the failure of the trial court to comply with the mandatory notice requirement of R.C. 2937.36 excuses the surety from liability until such time as a show cause hearing is held; and that a three-month delay in notifying the surety of failure of its principal to appear in court is good cause for not entering judgment against the surety and for giving an extension of time to produce the principal.

R.C. 2937.36(C) provides:

"As to recognizances he (magistrate or clerk) shall notify accused and each surety by ordinary mail at the address shown by them in their affidavits of qualification or on the record of the case, of the default of the accused and the adjudication...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Dep't of Liquor Control v. Calvert
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 2 Septiembre 2011
    ...923 N.E.2d 159; State v. Huffman, 6th Dist. No. S–10–016, 2010-Ohio-5026, 2010 WL 4027670. See also State v. Ward (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 40, 42, 7 O.O.3d 124, 372 N.E.2d 586; State v. Ward (Dec. 22, 1976), 3d Dist. No. 1–76–59, 1976 WL 189013 (“ ‘Does the fact the surety had insufficient tim......
  • State v. Ohayon
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 5 Diciembre 1983
    ...vacation is alone insufficient. There also must be set forth a sufficient defense to the [forfeiture] judgment." State v. Ward (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 40, 42, 372 N.E.2d 586 . Therefore, if appellant has a valid defense, appellant will not be liable for the defendant's initial nonappearance a......
  • State v. C.L.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 27 Septiembre 2021
    ... ... sufficient reasons why the surety could not locate the ... defendant.'" State v. Ward, 53 Ohio St.2d ... 40, 42 (1978), quoting State v. Ward, 3d Dist ... Putnam No. 1-76-59, 1976 WL 189013, *3 (Dec. 22, 1976). When ... ...
  • State v. David Riggs, 81-LW-1989
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 9 Noviembre 1981
    ...that the court treated the forfeiture according to the statute and permitted the defendant the opportunity to show cause. In State v. Ward (1978) 53 Ohio St.2d 40, case as noted above not directly on point, the Supreme Court said, "The good cause contemplated (2937.36(C)) goes to the proof ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT