New Bail Bill Filed in House

A new bail bond bill (HB586) was filed in the Missouri House by Representative Brian Yates. It is the same as SB153 filed by Senator Engler last December. Whether you are a general agent or an agent, you will be affected by these changes. If you have an opinion to share, contact your senator and representative. If you think these changes would be harmful to your business ask them to remove the bail language from these bills.

Here is my take on the bail bond language in these bills:

■SB153 and HB586 increase the CD required by the state from $10,000 to $20,000 then allows the DIFP to quintuple the CD to $100,000 based on some future regulations that have not been written yet. Whether a company has 100 agents or 1 agent, it will be required to file the same amount in CDs, creating a higher percentage of overhead for small or family-owned bail bond companies. It creates other new regulatory fees without disclosing what the cost will be.

■The bill does not fix the problem we have with felons in the bail bond business. It does not remove the 15-year felony clause. This bill continues to allow the licensing of convicted felons. Under this bill, felons can be licensed as bail bond agents as long as they do not meet the statutory definition of “dangerous felon.” Examples of felons not covered by this statute would be those convicted of possession of child pornography, possession, manufacture, or distribution of drugs, felony stealing, and felon in possession of a firearm. The bill gives only lip-service to the problem by requiring a criminal background screen which is already being required by the Department. Instructs licensees arrested for a felony to report the arrest to the Department but does not instruct the Department on how to act upon this information.

■The bill transfers the bail bond qualification process from the local judges and places it upon the Office of State Courts Administrator. The cost associated with this filing is not disclosed. Although the nation-wide bail bond loss rate is 4%, but the bill requires a bail bond company to have assets to cover 100% of the bonds in force. This provision creates an unfair advantage for insurance companies, who are exempt from this provision.

■Requires that a bail bond agent wishing to leave a company, file an affidavit saying there are no outstanding premiums owed the company. The former general agent can cancel the authority of his former agent by filing an affidavit with the Department of Insurance. This provision was borrowed from the Florida statutes, with two important differences. First, the Florida statute includes a due-process provision which stays the cancellation of authority until the Department investigates the allegations of the former general agent. Without this provision, a former general agent can deprive an agent of the right to earn a living without due process of law. Secondly, Florida does not allow credit bonds, so any outstanding premiums would have been collected but unreported to the company. However, since Missouri allows agents to extend credit to clients, this provision could be applied to uncollected or uncollectible premiums owed both the agent and the company. Misappropriation of premium is already against the law. If an agent has misappropriated bail bond premium, there is already legal remedies for the company. The company can file charges with the local prosecutor, file a complaint with the Department for misappropriation of premium, or sue the agent for the premium.

■ Requires the Department to notify general agents of bail bond forfeitures within 48 hours. I assume the drafters of this bill meant to say upon notice of unsatisfied judgments, the Department must notify general agents. Courts do not routinely notice the Department of a “notice of forfeiture.” Since most forfeitures are set aside and do not result in judgment, this language creates the onerous task of notification of forfeitures by courts and the Department even though forfeitures rarely result in unsatisfied judgments. (Unpaid judgments are already reported to the Department by law.)

■Requires the Department to issue a photographic identification but does not disclose how the picture is to be obtained or what increased cost will be.