Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.640 (2026)

Recognizance forfeited, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

544.640. Recognizance forfeited, when. — If, without sufficient cause or excuse, the defendant fails to appear for trial or judgment, or upon any other occasion when his presence in court may be lawfully required, according to the condition of his recognizance, the court must direct the fact to be entered upon its minutes, and thereupon the recognizance is forfeited, and the same shall be proceeded upon by scire facias to final judgment and execution thereon, although the defendant may be afterward arrested on the original charge, unless remitted by the court for cause shown.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3973)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3584; 1919 § 3927; 1909 § 5134

(1954) Words "unless remitted by the court for cause shown" relate to the whole of § 544.640 and trial court, while the matter is pending before it, may for cause remit the penalty before final judgment but such remission must be based on proof of extraordinary and unusual circumstances. State v. Salisbury, 364 Mo. 1039, 271 S.W.2d 522.

(1961) Where defendant failed to appear on misdemeanor charge at time fixed in his bond, the bond could be forfeited, notwithstanding his attorney appeared and the information in the case was dismissed as being insufficient. State v. Norton (Mo.), 347 S.W.2d 849.

(1973) Incarceration of defendant in another state is not circumstance which will discharge his surety as a matter of law. State v. Jones (Mo.), 491 S.W.2d 241.

(1974) Only grounds for discharge of a surety on a bail bond are failure to appear because of (1) an act of God, (2) an act of law, (3) an act of an obligee. State owes no duty to have party returned under agreement on detainers in order to avoid forfeiture of bond. State v. Patterson (A.), 508 S.W.2d 304.

(1974) Held that release of surety on bond is mandatory where defendant is produced in open court after forfeiture of bond but before a judgment on the forfeiture. Proper venue for action on the bond is in court of county where action commenced, not in county to which action was transferred on change of venue. State v. Street (A.), 510 S.W.2d 225.

(1974) Held that court is not required to have either accused or his bondsman called prior to forfeiture of bail. State v. Henderson (A.), 512 S.W.2d 218.

(1980) After the police had obtained custody of defendant and a bail bond forfeiture proceeding is subsequently held, the court is not required to release surety from liability. State v. Armstrong (A.), 605 S.W.2d 526.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1954–2012 · leading case: State v. Armstrong, 605 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Armstrong, 605 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “The court interpreted § 544.640, RSMo 1978 1 to mean that the arrest of the accused by peace officers after forfeiture and before final judgment did not entitle the sureties to relief as a matter of right.”

State v. Salisbury, 271 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. 1954). · cites it 6× “The surety relies on §§ 544.640, 549.020, and State v. Wynne, 356 Mo.”

State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. 1961). · cites it 6× “This is in accord with § 544.640, reading: "If, without sufficient cause or excuse, the defendant fails to appear for trial or judgment, or upon any other occasion when his presence in court may be lawfully required, according to the condition of his recognizance, the court must…”

State v. Michael R. Thomas Bail Bond Co., 367 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “2011: If, without sufficient cause or excuse, the defendant fails to appear for trial or judgment, or upon any other occasion when his presence in court may be lawfully required, according to the condition of his recognizance, the court must direct the fact to be entered upon…”

State v. Savage, 461 S.W.2d 887 (Mo. 1971). · cites it 5× “-12 is at least as broad as under § 544.640, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which provides that the court may, for cause shown, remit the forfeiture.”

State v. Callies, 389 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The April 15, 2011 judgment of bond forfeiture, which was entered pursuant to section 544.640 and Rule 33.14, satisfied all the requirements of a judgment, and because no authorized after trial motion was filed, it became final after thirty days.”

State v. Foster, 512 S.W.2d 448 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “for the reason that the principal-defendant and the surety did everything within their respective powers to return the principal-defendant to Jackson County, Missouri, for trial, and failed only because the State-ob-ligee failed to co-operate .”

State v. Street, 510 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 3× “(Section 544.640 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.). Nor was the court required to give prior notice to the surety of such forfeiture.”

State v. Siemens, 12 S.W.3d 776 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Section 544.640 provides: If, without sufficient cause or excuse, the defendant fails to appear for trial or judgment, or upon any other occasion when his presence in court may be lawfully required, according to the condition of his recognizance, the court must direct the fact…”

State v. Yount, 813 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 544.640; Rule 33.14. The distinction between bond forfeiture and judgment on the forfeiture is a long observed one under Missouri law.”

State v. Jones, 491 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. 1973). · cites it 2× “Appellant now contends the court erred “in failing to use its discretion by refusing to consider the fact that defendant * * * was incarcerated when his appearance bond was forfeited, and in granting judgment for the State * * * upon * * * motion for judgment of default upon the…”

Holleran v. Holleran, 998 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Section 544.640. However, when the conditions of the bond have been satisfied the court shall release the obligors.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

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.