Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.39 (2026)

Remitting all or part of penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After judgment has been rendered against surety or after securities sold or cash bail applied, the court or magistrate, on the appearance, surrender, or re-arrest of the accused on the charge, may remit all or such portion of the penalty as it deems just and in the case of previous application and transfer of cash or proceeds, the magistrate or clerk may deduct an amount equal to the amount so transferred from subsequent payments to the agencies receiving such proceeds of forfeiture until the amount is recouped for the benefit of the person or persons entitled thereto under order or remission.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: State v. Jackson, 795 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jackson, 795 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “{¶ 3} On December 18, 2002, appellants filed a motion for remission of bond, requesting full or partial remission of the forfeited bond pursuant to R.C. 2937.39. According to the motion, appellants searched diligently for Jackson but could not locate her.”
State v. McKay, 2017 Ohio 7918 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 32× “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO REMIT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE FORFEITED SURETY BOND, AND FAILING TO WEIGH THE FACTORS UNDER O.R.C. 2937.39. {¶5} Caesar argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to remit the entire…”
State v. Patton, 573 N.E.2d 1201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Once bail has been forfeited, it may be remitted, in whole or in part, pursuant to R.C. 2937.39. This section provides: “After judgment has been rendered against surety or after securities sold or cash bail applied, the court or magistrate, on the appearance, surrender, or…”
State v. Johnson, 2020 Ohio 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “If good cause by production of the body of the accused or otherwise is not shown, the court or magistrate shall thereupon enter judgment against the sureties or either of them, so notified, in such amount, not exceeding the penalty of the bond, as has been set in the…”
State v. Am. Bail Bond Agency, 719 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The remission of a forfeited bail bond upon a defendant’s reappearance is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court by R.C. 2937.39, which provides: “After judgment has been rendered against surety * * * the court or magistrate, on the appearance, surrender, or…”
Dep't of Liquor Control v. Calvert, 961 N.E.2d 247 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “{¶ 30} Appellant argues that she will not have an appropriate remedy pursuant to R.C. 2937.39, which permits sureties to seek remission of the forfeiture in the event the accused subsequently appears, surrenders, or is arrested.”
State v. Duran, 758 N.E.2d 742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2937.39 provides: “After judgment has been rendered against surety or after securities sold or cash bail applied, the court or magistrate, on the appearance, surrender, or rearrest of the accused on the charge, may remit all or such portion of the penalty as it deems just…”
State v. AAA Sly Bail Bonds, 2020 Ohio 1375 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “ANALYSIS {¶ 20} Appellant argues per R.C. 2937.39 it could not move for remission until after it satisfied the judgment and there was something to remit.”
State v. Slider, 919 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Thus, we will not address whether, in fact, the trial court erred in denying the motion actually filed by appellant.”
Univ. Hts. v. Allen, 2019 Ohio 2908 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “It “provides a surety with a mechanism for requesting that a court remit all or a portion of a forfeited recognizance” bond if the statutory elements are met.”
State v. Dorsey, 2016 Ohio 3207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO REMIT ANY PORTION OF THE FORFEITED SURETY BOND, AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE FACTORS UNDER O.R.C. 2937.39. II. Analysis {¶ 5} In its sole assignment of error, You Walk argues that the trial court abused its discretion by…”
Fairfield v. Lopez, 2018 Ohio 914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “{¶ 4} On June 14, 2017, Palmer filed a motion for remission of forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2937.39, or in the alternative, a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.”
Show all 30 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.