State v. Tate, 2012 OK 31

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a bail bondsman must deposit the face amount of a forfeited bond with the court clerk by the ninety-first day after receiving notice of forfeiture as a condition precedent to seeking remitter under 59 O.S. § 1332(D)(2). Because the bondsman paid on the ninety-second day, the court reversed the trial court's remitter order and remanded the matter.

Holdings

1. Deposit of the face amount of the forfeited bond with the court clerk by the ninety-first day after receipt of the order and judgment of forfeiture is a condition precedent to seeking remitter under § 1332(D)(2). A bondsman who does not comply with § 1332(D)(1) may not obtain the statutory remitter remedy.
2. The trial court erred by granting remitter because the bondsman failed to deposit the bond amount by the ninety-first day as required by § 1332(D)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether a bondsman's failure to deposit the face amount of a forfeited bond by the ninety-first day after receipt of notice prevents the bondsman from seeking remitter under 59 O.S. Supp. 2008 § 1332(D)(2).
2. Whether the trial court properly granted remitter when the statutory ninety-first-day payment requirement was not satisfied.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded