Ark. Code Ann. § 16-84-201 (2026)

Case Notes

Burden of Proof.

Where a bonding company contends that the statutory notice required under subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section was defective because it was not sent to the address shown on the bond, the bonding company has the burden to show that the circuit court administrator sent the notice to the wrong address based on the bail bond. Bonding v. State, 340 Ark. 641, 13 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2000).

Where bondsman filed a motion to set aside a bond-forfeiture orderl more than 98 days after the forfeiture, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the subsequent hearing to act on the motion to set aside the judgment because the 90 period provided for under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a) had elapsed and the bondsman had not met his burden of proof under this section to show cause to the trial court as to why the bond should not be forfeited. Arvis Harper Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 91 Ark. App. 95, 208 S.W.3d 809 (2005).

Credit for Expenses.

The trial court correctly complied with subdivision (c)(1) where the defendant was surrendered after the forfeiture but prior to entry of the judgment, and the trial court credited the appellant bonding company with $15,000 against the $75,000 forfeited bond as a setoff for funds expended in apprehending the defendant. A-1 Bonding v. State, 64 Ark. App. 135, 984 S.W.2d 29 (1998).

Effect of Amendments.

Until 1989, the trial court had discretion to remit the whole or a part of the amount specified in the bond agreement if the defendant was surrendered or arrested prior to entry of the forfeiture judgment against the surety; in 1989, however, the General Assembly amended subsection (c) to require the trial court to exonerate a reasonable amount of the surety's liability under the bail bond if, prior to entry of the judgment against the surety, the defendant was surrendered, arrested or good cause was shown for his nonappearance; in 1991, the General Assembly again amended subsection (c) to add a new second sentence to provide that, after the defendant's nonappearance, if the surety caused the apprehension of the defendant or the defendant was apprehended within 120 days from the date of his failure to appear, no judgment or forfeiture of the bond could be entered against the surety, except as provided in subsection (e); finally, in 1993, the General Assembly revised the second sentence of subsection (c) to provide that if the surety caused the apprehension of the defendant or the defendant was apprehended within 120 days from the date of receipt of written notification to the surety of the defendant's failure to appear, no judgment or forfeiture of bond could be entered against the surety, except as provided in subsection (e). AAA Bail Bond Co. v. State, 319 Ark. 327, 891 S.W.2d 362 (1995).

Failure to Appear.

When defendant fails to appear at the trial and the court enters that fact upon its record the bond is forfeited. Craig v. State, 257 Ark. 112, 514 S.W.2d 383 (1974); Heritage Ins. Co. v. White County, 279 Ark. 94, 649 S.W.2d 170 (1983).

Defendants forfeited bond by failing to appear for trial and trial court was not required to set aside the bond forfeiture and to conduct show-cause hearing in the forfeiture because, according to the specific language of this section, it is the surety, or bail bondsman who undertakes the obligation and who is entitled to the order setting the show-cause hearing, not the defendants. Miranda v. State, 304 Ark. 567, 803 S.W.2d 910 (1991).

Bond forfeited where bonding company was notified of the date of the defendant's scheduled appearance, but did not advise the defendant, who did not appear; the bond company thus failed to produce the defendant or to submit evidence to the court that part of the bond amount should be remitted. M & M Bonding Co. v. State, 59 Ark. App. 228, 955 S.W.2d 521, 1997 Ark. App. LEXIS 860 (1997).

Court did not err in upholding a bond forfeiture after a person who was arrested for public intoxication did not appear in court; subsection (b) of this section does not provide that the failure of a law enforcement agency to make every reasonable effort to apprehend a person necessarily constitutes good cause for the person's failure to appear. Hot Springs Bail Bond v. State, 90 Ark. App. 370, 206 S.W.3d 306 (2005).

Forfeiture Upheld.

Forfeiture of the bond for violation of probation and unpaid fines upheld where the surety failed to show that it exercised the effort required to return or attempt to effect the return of the defendant to custody. AAA Bail Bond Co. v. State, 55 Ark. App. 35, 929 S.W.2d 723 (1996).

Notice to Surety.

Notice to the surety, before forfeiture, is not required. Heritage Ins. Co. v. White County, 279 Ark. 94, 649 S.W.2d 170 (1983).

Substantial compliance with the notice requirement in subsection (c) is not sufficient in view of this section's clear and express requirement that written notification of defendant's nonappearance be given to commence the 120-day period. AAA Bail Bond Co. v. State, 319 Ark. 327, 891 S.W.2d 362 (1995).

Where the record failed to reflect notice to the surety within the time limits specified in this section, and forfeiture was entered before a show cause order was issued, reversible error resulted from the State's noncompliance with the terms of this section. Holt Bonding Co. v. State, 328 Ark. 178, 942 S.W.2d 834, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 233 (1997).

When the trial court performed the operative act of entering the failure of a defendant to appear into the minutes or docket, it became mandatory for notice to be promptly given to the appellant surety; notice given almost 18 months later did not constitute prompt notice. Bob Cole Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 65 Ark. App. 1, 984 S.W.2d 78 (1999).

The trial court failed to give the form of notice required by this section where the summons issued by the trial court was directed to the surety's street address rather than the post-office box address stated on the bond. Bob Cole Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 65 Ark. App. 5, 984 S.W.2d 83 (1999).

The trial court erred in ruling that the service requirements contained in the statute were fulfilled where the record did not show whether the notice was sent to the address listed on the bond and did not reflect that the notice was sent by certified mail. Bob Cole Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 68 Ark. App. 13, 2 S.W.3d 94 (1999), rev'd, 340 Ark. 641, 13 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2000).

No judgment of forfeiture could be entered since the 120-day period never began to run as notice to the surety was defective, and the defendant was apprehended. Bob Cole Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 68 Ark. App. 13, 2 S.W.3d 94 (1999), rev'd, 340 Ark. 641, 13 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2000).

Once the trial court made a docket entry noting defendant's failure to appear, it was mandatory pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section to promptly notify surety of the failure to appear, and failure to do so required reversal of bond forfeiture. Holt Bonding Co. v. State, 77 Ark. App. 198, 72 S.W.3d 537, 2002 Ark. App. LEXIS 240 (2002).

Where there was a six-month lapse between defendant's failure to appear and the issuance of the show-cause order, the trial court's failure to give timely notice to the bonding company prevented bond forfeiture. Spencer Bonding Servs. v. State, 89 Ark. App. 72, 200 S.W.3d 457 (2004).

Recovery of Bail.

Where defendant admitted that he forfeited his bail and he failed to provide any proof that his bail should not have been forfeited because he was in prison at the time of the forfeiture, he could not recover the bail which he had forfeited. Flynn v. Greene County, 12 Ark. App. 386, 676 S.W.2d 766 (1984).

Show-Cause Order.

A show-cause order does not abrogate a statutory forfeiture under this section, but merely affords the bondsmen an opportunity to be heard with respect to a total or partial remission of the forfeiture under § 16-84-205. Craig v. State, 257 Ark. 112, 514 S.W.2d 383 (1974).

Cited: General Casualty Co. v. State, 229 Ark. 485, 316 S.W.2d 704 (1958); Central Cas. Co. v. State, 233 Ark. 832, 349 S.W.2d 135 (1961); McCrosky v. State, 235 Ark. 629, 361 S.W.2d 266 (1962); Flynn v. Greene County, 12 Ark. App. 386, 676 S.W.2d 766 (1984); J & J Bonding, Inc. v. State, 330 Ark. 599, 955 S.W.2d 516 (1997); Holt Bonding Co. v. State, 77 Ark. App. 198, 72 S.W.3d 537, 2002 Ark. App. LEXIS 240 (2002); Holt Bonding Co. v. State, 353 Ark. 136, 114 S.W.3d 179, 2003 Ark. LEXIS 250 (2003).