THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
765.28 Failure to appear; notice to surety; service; judgment; execution; set aside of forfeiture order; discharge of bail or surety bond; conditions.
Sec. 28.
(1) If a defendant fails to appear, within 7 days after the date of the failure to appear the court shall serve each surety notice of the failure to appear. The notice must be served upon each surety in person, left at the surety's last known business address, electronically mailed to an electronic mail address provided to the court by the surety, or mailed by first-class mail to the surety's last known business address. However, if the notice is served by first-class mail, it must be mailed separately from the notice of intent to enter judgment. Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the full amount of the bail or surety bond. If good cause is not shown for the defendant's failure to appear, the court shall enter judgment against the surety on the recognizance for an amount determined appropriate by the court but not more than the full amount of the bail, or if a surety bond has been posted the full amount of the surety bond. If the amount of a forfeited surety bond is less than the full amount of the bail, the defendant shall continue to be liable to the court for the difference, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Execution must be awarded and executed upon the judgment in the manner provided for in personal actions.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the court shall set aside the forfeiture and discharge the bail or surety bond within year from the date of forfeiture judgment if the defendant has been apprehended, the ends of justice have not been thwarted, and the county has been repaid its costs for apprehending the person. If the bond or bail is discharged, the court shall enter an order to that effect with a statement of the amount to be returned to the surety.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the defendant was apprehended more than 56 days after the bail or bond was ordered forfeited and judgment entered and the surety did not fully pay the forfeiture judgment within that 56-day period.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17190 ;-- CL 1948, 765.28 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 659, Eff. Apr. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 332, Imd. Eff. Sept. 23, 2004 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 174, Eff. Feb. 19, 2018
Compiler's Notes:
In subsection (2), the words “within year from the date of forfeiture judgment” evidently should read “within 1 year from the date of forfeiture judgment.”
Notes of Decisions
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
· cites it 62× “This Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the trial court’s failure to provide the appellant-surety notice within seven days of defendant’s failure to appear, as is required by MCL 765.28, bars forfeiture of the bail bond posted by the surety.”
Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v. St Clair Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 31× “The trial court dismissed plaintiffs claims and held that the exclusive remedy for the return of such funds was through MCL 765.28. 1 Because the Legislature’s *550 amendment of MCL 765.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 16× “At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.28 provided: In addition to any other method available, it is hereby provided that whenever default shall be made in any recognizance in any court of record, the same shall be duly entered of record…”
People v. Evans, 454 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 10× “It appears from the record that the judge believed he could amend the judgment of forfeiture under MCL 765.28; MSA 28.915, if Kozy eventually produced Evans.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 16× “At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.28 provided: In addition to any other method available, it is hereby provided that whenever default shall be made in any recognizance in any court of record, the same shall be duly entered of record…”
In the Matter of Laster, 274 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. 1979).
· cites it 2× “If good cause is not shown, the court shall then enter judgment against the surety or sureties on said recognizance for such amount as it may see fit not exceeding the full amount thereof.”
People v. Person, 205 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 3× “MCLA 765.28; MSA 28.915, provides, in part: "[T]hat whenever default shall be made in any recognizance in any court of record, the same shall be duly entered * * * and thereafter said court, upon the motion of [the prosecuting official], may give the surety * * * 20 days’ notice…”
People v. Pavlak, 297 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“On that same date, the surety had voluntarily paid the $1,000 face value of the bond into the court, foregoing the requirement of MCL 765.28; MSA 28.915 and People v Person, 44 Mich App 630 ; 205 NW2d 610 (1973), that the prosecutor first obtain a judgment for the bond…”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Shaver) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 26× “” Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair Co, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the…”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Young) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 25× “-2- Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair County, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the full…”
Calvert Bail Bonds Agency LLC v. St Clair Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 17× “Plaintiff was entitled to a return of the bond payments if it followed the procedures set forth under MCL 765.28, which required plaintiff to pay the full amount of the judgments for bond forfeitures, and apprehend and return the underlying defendants to the court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.28(1) — 10 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
“This Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the trial court’s failure to provide the appellant-surety notice within seven days of defendant’s failure to appear, as is required by MCL 765.28, bars forfeiture of the bail bond posted by the surety.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.28 provided: In addition to any other method available, it is hereby provided that whenever default shall be made in any recognizance in any court of record, the same shall be duly entered of record…”
Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v. St Clair Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court dismissed plaintiffs claims and held that the exclusive remedy for the return of such funds was through MCL 765.28. 1 Because the Legislature’s *550 amendment of MCL 765.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.28 provided: In addition to any other method available, it is hereby provided that whenever default shall be made in any recognizance in any court of record, the same shall be duly entered of record…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.28(2) — 6 cases
Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v. St Clair Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court dismissed plaintiffs claims and held that the exclusive remedy for the return of such funds was through MCL 765.28. 1 Because the Legislature’s *550 amendment of MCL 765.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
“This Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the trial court’s failure to provide the appellant-surety notice within seven days of defendant’s failure to appear, as is required by MCL 765.28, bars forfeiture of the bail bond posted by the surety.”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Shaver) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair Co, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the…”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Young) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“-2- Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair County, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the full…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.28(3) — 8 cases
Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v. St Clair Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 425 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court dismissed plaintiffs claims and held that the exclusive remedy for the return of such funds was through MCL 765.28. 1 Because the Legislature’s *550 amendment of MCL 765.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
“This Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the trial court’s failure to provide the appellant-surety notice within seven days of defendant’s failure to appear, as is required by MCL 765.28, bars forfeiture of the bail bond posted by the surety.”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Young) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“-2- Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair County, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the full…”
In Re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People v. Shaver) (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” Calvert Bail Bond Agency, LLC v St Clair Co, 314 Mich App 548, 553 ; 887 NW2d 425 (2016); see also MCL 765.28(1). “Each surety must be given an opportunity to appear before the court on a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered against the surety for the…”
Calvert Bail Bonds Agency LLC v. St Clair Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Plaintiff was entitled to a return of the bond payments if it followed the procedures set forth under MCL 765.28, which required plaintiff to pay the full amount of the judgments for bond forfeitures, and apprehend and return the underlying defendants to the court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.