Timely Notice Necessary for Courts to Collect on Bond Forfeiture | Speaker Law
phone icon email icon
(517) 482-8933

Speaker Law
Blog

Timely Notice Necessary for Courts to Collect on Bond Forfeiture

Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2018

MCL 765.28(1) and MCR 3.604(I)(2) do not conflict. The statute (MCL 765.28 (1)) is the procedure for providing a surety notice of default. The court rule (MCR 3.604(I)(2), however, is the procedure to provide notice of hearing on a motion for a judgment. “These are two separate and distinct events. A default must be entered prior to a hearing to enter judgment on the default.”

 

Notice of default was defective:

 

 According to the statute, a surety must receive immediate notice, “not to exceed seven days after the date of the failure to appear.” Notice, per the postmark, was mailed on the eighth day. And, according to the statute notice “shall be served upon each surety in person or left at the surety’s last known business address.” Thus, mailing the notice was not proper service.

 

But, notice of the hearing on the motion to enter judgment against Leo’s was timely under the court rule. However, although Leo’s had proper notice of the motion to enter the judgment against it doesn’t change the fact the he didn’t “receive proper notice of the default itself.”

 

The Circuit Court judgment against appellant Leo’s was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. 

Do you have an appeal?
Let's find out!

Recent
Posts

Trial Court Erroneously Ordered Child’s Surname Be Changed
May 27, 2020
A trial court improperly held that the surname of a child born out ...
MSC: Consent Divorce Judgment Preempted By Federal Law
May 20, 2020
A consent judgment of divorce under which the parties agreed that t...
Surviving Spouse Was Not ‘Willfully Absent’ During Divorce Proceedings
May 13, 2020
The defendant, Anne Jones-Von Greiff, was married to the decedent, ...
Trial Court Penalized Parent For Working Outside Home: Custody Order Must Be Reassessed
May 6, 2020
The trial court in this custody action erroneously discounted the r...

Tags

 

Subscribe to our blog

* indicates required