Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.19
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.19.140 (2026)

Return of bond to surety, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If a forfeiture has been entered against a person in a criminal case and the person is returned to custody or produced in court within twelve months from the forfeiture, then the full amount of the bond, less any and all costs determined by the court to have been incurred by law enforcement in transporting, locating, apprehending, or processing the return of the person to the jurisdiction of the court, shall be remitted to the surety if the surety was directly responsible for producing the person in court or directly responsible for apprehension of the person by law enforcement.
[ 1986 c 322 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1986 c 322: See note following RCW 10.19.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: State v. Kramer, 167 Wash. 2d 548 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kramer, 167 Wash. 2d 548 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 12× “” Br. of Appellant at 16 (citations omitted).”
Matter of Marriage of Bralley, 855 P.2d 1174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “090 2 did not apply to the cash bail, that Gibson was not the party of record for the bail, that she was not responsible for Bralley's apprehension under RCW 10.19.140, and that, if RCW 10.19.140 3 did apply, the *651 State was entitled to $1,000 as an offset for the cost of…”
State v. Kramer, 219 P.3d 700 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 12× “of Appellant at 16 (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's finding, stating, "All City lacked direct responsibility for Mr.”
Regan v. McLachlan, 257 P.3d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We stated that it is undisputed that the remittance order complied with RCW 10.19.140 and properly listed Metro City as the issuer of the bail bond.”
State v. Hampton, 728 P.2d 1049 (Wash. 1986). “RCW 10.19.140. In State v. Mullen, supra, we held that where the bonding company is diligent in returning the defendant to the court's jurisdiction, to forfeit the bail is an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Paul, 976 P.2d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 10.19.140. Cash bail. When the entire amount of bail is put up in cash, there is no need of a surety.”
State v. Kramer, 174 P.3d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “090, subject to possible exoneration pursuant to RCW 10.19.140. ¶ 8 All City first contends the trial court improperly applied contract law to require it to secure Mr.”
State v. Kramer, 141 Wash. App. 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “090, subject to possible exoneration pursuant to RCW 10.19.140. ¶8 All City first contends the trial court improperly applied contract law to require it to secure Mr.”
State Of Washington v. Sarah Marie Strong (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “And there was no evidence before the trial court, prior to its ruling on reconsideration, showing Ace’s was directly responsible for producing Ms.”
State Of Washington v. Pac. Nw. Bail Bonding (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” We conclude the trial court has extremely broad discretion to consider equitable grounds for exoneration and PNW fails to establish an abuse of discretion. The bail bond statutes provide a framework for the trial court to determine whether a case warrants a decision based in…”
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.