1. Applicable Statutes

Hawaii Revised Statutes, Division Two: Business, Title 24: Insurance, Chapter 431: Insurance Code, Article 9A: Producer Licensing

Hawaii Revised Statutes, Division Five: Crimes and Criminal Proceedings, Title 38: Procedural and Supplementary Provisions, Chapter 804: Bail, Bond to Keep the Peace: Part III: Forfeiture.

The regulatory body is the Department of Insurance.

2. Licensing Requirements

Bail bond agents are licensed as insurance producers and must comply with the following:

• Be at least 18 years of age
• Have not committed any act that is a ground for a licensure sanction set forth in section 431:9A-112
• Pay the applicable fee set forth in section 431:7-101; and
• Pass, within the two years immediately preceding the date of the examination or issuance of the license, whichever is later, the applicable examination for each line of authority for which the applicant has applied. [ HI ST § 431:9A-106]

3. Notice of Forfeiture

When a defendant fails to appear, the court shall enter a record of their default. Notice will be given to the surety via personal service or certified mail return receipt requested immediately.

[ HI ST § 804-51]

4. Forfeiture to Judgment

Execution on a forfeiture will be entered thirty (30) days from the date of notice, unless good cause is shown why the judgment should not be taken against the surety. [ HI ST § 804-51]

5. Defenses to Forfeiture

The court may vacate the forfeiture if the surety can show good cause as to why the judgment should not be executed against them within the 30-day period after notice is sent. [ HI ST § 804-51]

6. Remission

If the surety makes a showing of good cause for the failure to appear and if the principal surrenders himself or is surrendered by the surety, then the court will return the bond less the amount of any cost incurred by the failure to appear. [ HI ST § 804-51]

7. Bail Agent's Arrest Authority

Those who may have become bail for anyone, may at any time discharge themselves, by surrendering him to the custody of any sheriff or chief of police or his authorized subordinate. [ HI ST § 804-14]

8. Other Noteworthy Provisions

Whenever by reason of the military service of a principal, the sureties of a criminal bail bond are prevented from enforcing the attendance of their principal and performing their obligation, the court shall not enforce the provisions of the bond during the military service of that principal. The court, in accordance with principles of equity and justice, may discharge those sureties and exonerate the bail either during or after such service. [ HI ST § 657D-3]

9. Noteworthy Appellate Decisions

State v. Flores , 962 P.2d 1008 (Hawai'i App.,1998).

A bail bonding company filed a motion to set aside a bond forfeiture ordered after the defendant failed to appear. The First Circuit Court denied the motion, and the bail bondsman appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the surety was not entitled to relief from the forfeiture even though the bondsman had located the defendant in American Samoa . The police in American Samoa allegedly refused to arrest the defendant and return him because Hawai'i had not entered bench warrant information into Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system. The court explained that bonding is assuming a risk, and that ultimately the bonding company was responsible for the principal, even though he left the state. The failure of the state to enter the bench warrant information into the FBI's database did not excuse the bondsman's failure to produce his client.

Ruth v. Fleming , 637 P.2d 784 (Hawaii App., 1981).

The defendant was arrest for a different offense while out on bail. Before she missed her previously scheduled court appearances, she contacted the bail bonding company and warned that she would miss her court appearances because she was incarcerated. Her bail bonds were forfeited after she failed to appear. Though the forfeitures were eventually set aside, the bail bondsman sought indemnification for expenses incurred. The bail bondsman appealed from judgment of the District Court denying indemnification on ground that the expenses incurred and claimed arose out of the bondsman's negligence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that: (1) evidence supported finding that the bondsman had been negligent, and (2) the bondsman was not entitled to be indemnified against results of his own negligence, where the agreement did not contain any language providing for indemnity in such a case.

10. Bounty Hunter Provisions

There are currently no provisions regulating bounty hunters.