An interesting and in-depth article written by California Appellate Law Expert and Super Lawyer, John Derrick, titled “The Civil Appeals Process”, got me thinking about the role of defendant’s bonds in today’s court system. (see John’s full article: here) Specifically, the article got me thinking how defendant’s bonds (i.e. appeal bonds or stay bonds) are a vital and often little understood part of California’s legal universe.
In most instances obtaining a defendant bond is statutorily mandated by courts during an appeal proceeding in a civil court. Called either an appeal bond or supersedeas bond, these legal mechanisms are required by statute for the appeal of a money judgment. These surety bonds guarantee the judgment will be satisfied along with court costs. Surety bond cost varies by state but usually includes a provision for interest.
Appeal Bonds are widely used but not the only available option for a defendant. There are several other defendant bonds offered by Jurisco. Keep checking in to this blog explanations of the defendants bonds listed below:
When you are in need of a bond of if you have any questions, contact the bond experts at Jurisco and they will answer any of your questions.
“Simply put, money can be divided but children cannot” This line, by Jeff Landers on Forbes.com, speaks to the extra layer of difficulty when a divorcing couple have children. The article, however, speaks more to the extra (extra!) layer of difficulty when one member of the divorcing couple has an international passport. (see full post here) Just as the title of the article implies, (Small World, Big Problem: Divorces Involving Dual Citizenship) it may feel like the world is shrinking but the problems created by international divorces seem very big.
This is especially true in a multi-cultural, international, state like California where medium-to high-wealth individuals from all over the world move to seeking high-paying jobs. Divorced parties are concerned (and rightfully so), when their spouse leaves to another country with their children, that it will be be difficult and near impossible to enforce the tenets of the divorce agreement (including custody rights) in a country outside the jurisdiction of the US Department of Justice. They are right for feeling this way. Once outside the US, enforcing laws is not only problematic but very expensive.
Jurisco Court Surety in California is here to present you with a remedy for this situation, however, and more and more parents are seeking it in order to quell their fears regarding international divorce and custody rights. In Family Law this is such a surety bond called a ‘Ne Exeat Bond’ (Obvious translation: No Leaving); and this bond is used as a guarantee that the party wishing to leave the US with the children of a dual custody divorce will uphold the mutually signed divorce agreement. A little confused: Lets try an example: Parties A&B are a divorced couple currently living in the US with shared custody of children. Party A has a Euro Passport and wishes to move to France and take the kids with them. Party B doesn’t trust that they will have their legally guaranteed access to the children once Party is outside of US legal Jurisdiction. The presiding Judge decides that the safest route is to make Party A procure a “Ne Exeat Bond” and post it with the court. Party A is forbidden to leave the country until doing so. The dollar amount of the ‘Ne Exeat Bond’ is set at estimated cost Party B will incur pursuing legal action in France if Party A doesn’t live up to their end of the divorce agreement. To procure this bond, Party A will have to show proof of international address, likely job, family members in the destination country and other evidence that proves they are indeed moving where they say. Nobody like divorce, but Party B sleeps better knowing that their access to their children is being protected.
Need more information? Contact an actual person at Jurisco who can immediately help you with a Ne Exeat bond application in California or who can answer any questions you may have regarding any Surety Bond. In California or any other state.
As an attorney, have you ever had a client who was looking to start a new business ask you about a License Bond? As a potential small business owner have you ever had to procure a license bond and not known what in the world that would entail?
The bond experts at Jurisco will try to answer all of these questions. First of all, a license bond (also known as a business bond or permit bonds) is an integral part of regulated state commerce. And, in most cases, the license bond (or business bond) is used as a consumer protection mechanism; for instance that products for sale will be not be misrepresented or that prepaid fees will be guaranteed. In California, for example, in California operators of a Dance Studio must post (up to) a $25,000 surety license bond with the secretary of state’s office. This precautionary business bond protects consumers and safeguards their prepaid fees. (See link for a list of business bonds on the California Secretary of State website: SoS license bond list)
The Jurisco bond article team would also be remiss if they explain that requirements often change for license bonding. As this type of surety bond is a precautionary safeguard, the scope of damages they are protecting against may change over time. This is best evidenced by a statutory recently enacted by the California Assembly. The bill, which went into effect on New Year’s Day, increases the bond amount for acquiring car wash license from $15,000 to $150,000. Its true. In this case the bond isn’t protecting consumers but employees. Amended text of the bill states that the bond requirements are “for the benefit of the state to compensate employees damaged by the employer’s nonpayment of wages”. (See link for full bond text and more information: CA AB 1387) Since this bond is used to protect employees it would be posted with the Department of Industrial Relations. (see link for more information: Car Wash Bond )
This can, of course, be confusing. The surety bond experts at Jurisco understand this and are happy to assist you with any of your license bond or business bond inquiries. Contact one of their knowledgeable professionals today.
Recently, the surety bond experts at Jurisco and their blog team read an article on AmericanBanker.com (an online financial publication) about the future of online payment processing, written by Deborah Peace (read it: here). In it, Ms. Peace outlays the growing trend of online payment processing along with the future regulatory challenges and concerns.
One point was clear: Online transactions will only continue to increase. Additionally, many new businesses will try to position themselves as players in this global game. And in California, it’s no different. Many of these start-ups will follow the business model established by the global leader in online payments: Paypal. Paypal also leads the industry in Automated Clearing House Payments or ACH. According to Paypal’s website, this payment service enables you to electronically collect payments from your customers for either single-entry or recurring payments by directly debiting your customer’s checking or saving accounts. Such as for bill payment. Online payment software is a huge and growing industry. As Ms. Peace notes, with the world commercial economy shifting to a cashless world online payments will be ubiquitous and since so many billions of dollars will be exchanged daily over the internet the need for security and consumer protection becomes ever more important.
Jumping in to this breach with safety nets unfurling is the California Office of Administrative Law. And they come with their good book: The California Code of Regulations (CCOG). In the CCOG (Title 10, chapter 3, sub-chapter 10) the regulatory requirements for any entity that acts as a ‘bill payer’ are defined. One of the systems used to protect consumers from fraudulent activity and financial mismanagement of online bill paying is a legal device called a “Bill Payers Bond”. This Bond requires any “licensee engaged in the business of selling checks or accepting money for the purpose of forwarding it to others in payment of utility bills should obtain and file with the Commissioner a fidelity bond providing fidelity coverage on each officer and employee of not less than $50,000”
The bond experts at Jurisco realize the importance of protecting consumers and also the need for new business to be up to speed with all governmental requirements in California. So if you, or someone you know are in need of this type of fidelity bond, contact the surety bond experts at Jurisco for rates applications and more information.
On July 1st, 2012 a number of significant changes to the California mechanics lien law went into effect. It is hard to gauge exactly how much impact these changes have had lien filings in California. A recent article By Carlos Rico in The Daily Transcript postulates that there haven’t been a significant rise or fall in the number of lien filed in the state. He goes on to say that the strength of the economy (or lack of) if the determining factor in mechanics lien filings. (See Carlos’s article here). Taking these arguments into account one could argue that . . . maybe it is too early to decide if the changes to the mechanic’s lien law will produce their intended outcome: to streamline lien filing practices so contractors can get paid for their work.
This Jurisco blog has burned of many words updating California Attorneys on the workings of the Transfer of Lien Bond; also known as a Release of Lien Bond. Changes made to the mechanic’s lien law have a direct effect on any issuing of a Transfer of Lien Bond or a Release of Lien Bond in California. The new law reduces the size of the bond required to adequately release a property of a lien from 150 percent of the lien amount to 125 percent. See below or this Linkfor text of the code)
The good news: This reduction in bond amount makes it easier to issue these bonds. Extrapolated Further: This will help contractors collect payments because a Transfer of Lien Bond (or a Release of Lien Bond) is a legal mechanism that guarantees payment of contested amount if the property owner is found to be liable for the sum.
Does all this sound like a foreign language to you? If so, don’t be daunted. It is complicated. Luckily the surety bond experts at Jurisco can help make sense of all these changes. Contact a representative today.
CA Code 8410-8424
“8424. (a) An owner of real property or an owner of any interest in real property subject to a recorded claim of lien, or a direct contractor or subcontractor affected by the claim of lien, that disputes the correctness or validity of the claim may obtain release of the real property from the claim of lien by recording a lien release bond. The principal on the bond may be the owner of the property, the direct contractor, or the subcontractor.
(b) The bond shall be conditioned on payment of any judgment and costs the claimant recovers on the lien. The bond shall be in an amount equal to 125 percent of the amount of the claim of lien or 125 percent of the amount allocated in the claim of lien to the real property to be released. The bond shall be executed by an admitted surety insurer.
(c) The bond may be recorded either before or after commencement of an action to enforce the lien. On recordation of the bond, the real property is released from the claim of lien and from any action to enforce the lien.
(d) A person that obtains and records a lien release bond shall give notice to the claimant. The notice shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8100) of Title 1 and shall include a copy of the bond. Failure to give the notice required by this section does not affect the validity of the bond, but the statute of limitations for an action on the bond is tolled until notice is given. The claimant shall commence an action on the bond within six months after notice is given.”
This spring the Colorado legislature made a few substantive changes to the civil code in Colorado. This could lead to a change in your practice. The surety bond experts at Jurisco know this and will track the changes to keep you up to date. Colorado Senate Bill 13-077 will affect the way conservatorships and estates are regulated and executed in the state. This could affect all probate and estate planning practices.
According to the Probate Blog from the Law firm of Wade Ash Woods Hill &Farley, P.C., the new law has provisions that, “… adds to the factors that are to be considered by a judge when determining the reasonableness of compensation and costs in probate matters, and reaffirms that nominated and appointed personal representatives have legal standing to determine their decedent’s probable intent and estate planning purposes on issues involving the decedent’s estate and it allows those representatives to prosecute or defend their decedent’s intent at the expense of the estate, resolving a previously open question in probate proceedings”. (See the full blog post: here)
This affects many areas of probate including guardianships, estates and how personal representatives are allowed to execute estates.
This new law also has implications on how surety bonds and probate bonds will be handled in cases. For instance now that personal representatives are allowed more discretion to levy out the assets of an estate, more scrutiny will likely be applied to the PR’s qualifications and fitness to control the distribution of the decedent’s estate. A personal representative bond (also known as an administrator bond or an executor bond) will likely be required in more estate matters to guarantee that the PR’s discretion doesn’t stray too far from the orders stated in the will.
With a busy practice it can be difficult to follow all the changes in taking place in Denver. The bond experts at Jurisco will monitor how legislation affects your business.
It is difficult to sell a house or other realproperty if you have if you don’t own the title outright. And if there is a lien on the your property it can seem impossible. In reality, however, a property lien doesn’t have to be be a dead end to a sale. There are legal products that can can turn a serious impediment into just a speed bump.
First the cold hard facts. Merriam Webster defines a Lien as:
a charge upon real or personal property for the satisfaction of some debt or duty ordinarily arising by operation of law
In law, a charge or encumbrance onproperty for the satisfaction of a debt or other duty. Common law developed two kinds of possessory lien: the specific (a lien on the specific property involved in a transaction) and the general (a lien for the satisfaction of a balance due, not confined to a specific property involved in a transaction). Courts of equity may, through the device of the equitable lien, recognize a creditor’s interest in a debtor’s property. Statutory liens are also available; developers and building contractors, for example, may use their interest in an improved site as security for payment (a mechanic’s lien).
What most prospective sellers don’t realize is that there is a way to securely place any property lien outside the purview of the sale. Named a Transfer of Lien Bond (or a Release of Lien Bond), this surety bond releases a lien from the property and replaces it with a bond to guarantee satisfaction if the court upholds the lien’s merit.
Every day in California, people are realizing that they have options when it comes to selling real property. The transfer of lien bond can easily and effectively free up a seller from an otherwise sale-negating encumbrance.
The bond experts at Jurisco know more about Transfer of Lien bonds (or Release of Lien Bond) and all other types of defendant bonds than any one company has a right to. They’ve been writing these bonds and saving people time for decades. Contact them to learn more.
In previous articles the bond experts at Jurisco explained why collateral is a necessity in the surety bond industry. To quickly summarize: collateral is required on almost all defendant bonds applicants are appealing a money judgement or court action of some kind. Full collateral of the contested amount is required to provide adequate ‘good faith’ that the appeal action is not just a delay tactic by the defense in order to move assets out of jurisdiction and that the full sum of the contested amount will be satisfied if the appeal is denied.
What happens, however, if a defendant is faced with the possibility of two surety bonds on an appeal action. This is a rare circumstance where a defendant needs both a Superseadas/Appeal Bond and a Transfer of Lien Bond. This situation occurs when a defendant wishes to appeal a judgment and also wishes to sell a property that currently has a lien attached. This can often result in confusion, consternation and rancor over the double burden of having to fulfill the collateral requirements of both bonds. Just the bonding process alone (not counting attorney fees) could make the appeal process prohibitively expensive.
There are some surety agencies who feel that requiring an applicant to post collateral for both bonds is unnecessarily burdensome. The surety bond experts at Jurisco, for example, believe that a single posting of collateral is sufficient because it was a single judgement that created the need for the bonds. This saves the client precious time and money; and may even provide the financial leeway necessary to allow them to proceed with an appeal action.
For any question about rates and applications, feel free to contact the industry leaders at Jurisco
Making a lot of news lately are high profile patent infringement lawsuits coming out of silicon Valley. Clearly one of the biggest (and what The Wall Street Journal termed “The Patent Trial of the Century) was Apple’s suit against rival Samsung. Though this case made international news what a lot of people don’t recognize is that there are many smaller patent infringement lawsuits active in California at any time. The superfluity of new technologies has led to patent and trademark law becoming a very active and vital part of the California legal universe. Many of these lawsuits take the form of an injunction which is a legal mechanism to one party uses to strop the other from continuing a contested action. When technology patents are involved it generally takes the form of one company filing an injunction to prevent another company from selling a product which they believe contains patented technology i.e. screen functions. With court dockets becoming increasingly full of these types of lawsuits, California judges have shown a greater emphasis on plaintiff’s procuring Injunction Bonds. Injunction Bonds protect the defendant from being wrongfully enjoined, a surety bond covers any damages the defendant may sustain should the court rule the plaintiff’s suit is wrongful. The cost of the bond will vary depending on the amount of the lawsuit and state and local statutes. Of course, many times these case decision will be appealed. To understand that process please see the next article.
Jurisco knows that this information can be intimidated. They have bond professionals on hand to answer and questions you may have and to make you feel more at ease with the process.
New proposed federal legislation would affect patent litigation in California and injunction proceedings. U.S. House Resolution 6245, or popularly known as the S.H.I.E.L.D Act (Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes) would require patent holders defined as Non Producing Entities (NPE) to pay for the defendants legal fees if the patent infringement case is found to be frivolous. Furthermore, the act would require all NPE plaintiffs in patent infringement cases to procure an Injunction Bond before the court would hear the case. The Injunction bond would be for the amount of the defendants estimated legal fees. California is home to many of the country’s high tech patent holders and the passing of the Shield Act would change the California Intellectual Property Law industry would be significantly affected. In addition, the Shield Act and would increase the demand for Injunction Bonds in these Civil Court cases. Jurisco is one of the country’s leaders in all civil court bonds, both plaintiff and defendant, and they are up to date on all California Injunction bond requirements.
The Shield act would not, however, change the current requirements regarding Injunction and Appeal bonds in the California. Superior courts are requiring surety bonds for many trademark and intellectual property law cases around the state.
The bond experts at Jurisco will continue to monitor the Shield Act’s progress through congress, and they are available to answer any of your questions regarding these proposed changes.