Background
In July 2021, surety All in One Bonding posted a $30,000 bail bond on behalf of defendant Edward Deplae II in a criminal case in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. When Deplae failed to appear for a trial call on February 8, 2022, the circuit court issued a bench warrant and ordered forfeiture of the bail bond. Deplae was arrested and taken into custody on February 10, 2022 — the same day the circuit court entered its Forfeiture Judgment.
The State notified All in One of the forfeiture by certified mail, and All in One received notice on February 16, 2022. Under HRS § 804-51, a surety has thirty days from receipt of notice to file a motion showing good cause why execution of the forfeiture judgment should not issue. All in One did not file any such motion within that window.
More than two years later, on April 30, 2024, All in One filed a motion to set aside the bail forfeiture. All in One conceded the motion was not timely under HRS § 804-51, but argued it was nonetheless proper because Deplae had already been in state custody at the time the Forfeiture Judgment was entered. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider it because it was filed more than thirty days after All in One received notice of forfeiture.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial order. The court reaffirmed that once a bail bond is forfeited under HRS § 804-51, the surety has exactly thirty days from receipt of notice to file a motion for relief. After that window closes, the circuit court is without power to consider any motion to set aside the forfeiture — the statute does not provide for any exception.
The court rejected All in One’s argument that the defendant’s custody status at the time of the Forfeiture Judgment excused the untimely filing. Relying on State v. Clarkson, the court held that a principal’s return to custody before the thirty-day deadline passes does not exempt the surety from the obligation to file a timely motion. All in One offered no legal authority supporting any inherent-power or “fair process” exception, and the court declined to create one.
Key Takeaways
- Under HRS § 804-51, a surety must file a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture within thirty days of receiving notice; the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider any motion filed after that deadline, without exception.
- A defendant’s arrest and return to custody — even if it occurs during the thirty-day window — does not toll the deadline or excuse the surety from timely filing a motion for relief.
- An argument that the circuit court should exercise inherent authority to strike a forfeiture sua sponte will fail where the surety provides no supporting legal authority and no demonstration that the statutory process is unfair.
- Points not argued with supporting authority on appeal may be deemed waived under HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that HRS § 804-51’s thirty-day deadline for sureties to seek relief from bail forfeiture judgments is jurisdictional and strictly enforced. Bail bond companies cannot rely on a defendant’s recapture as an informal substitute for filing a timely motion, regardless of how quickly the principal is returned to custody after a missed appearance.
For practitioners representing sureties, the case is a cautionary reminder to calendar and act on forfeiture notices immediately. The opinion also signals that Hawaiian appellate courts will not recognize an equitable or inherent-power workaround to the statute’s hard deadline absent explicit statutory authority or compelling legal argument.