Easy Out Bonding v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: A26A0439
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 21, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0439. EASY OUT BONDING v. THE STATE.

Marius Ioan Pascu was released on a $7,500 bond with Easy Out Bonding (the “Surety”) as the surety. After Pascu failed to appear for an arraignment, the trial court forfeited the bond and entered a final judgment absolute on May 20, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the Surety filed a motion to vacate the judgment due to improper notice under OCGA § 17-6-71(a).1 On August 12, 2025, the trial court denied the motion, and the Surety filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2025. We lack jurisdiction. A notice of appeal ordinarily must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial court order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38(a). Here, rather than timely appealing the May 20, 2025 order,2 the Surety filed on July 7, 2025, a motion to vacate the judgment. To the extent the Surety sought to set aside the

1 The Surety contended that it should be relieved of liability on the appearance bond because the notice it received of the execution hearing failed to include a copy of the bench warrant for Pascu’s arrest as required by OCGA § 17-6-71(a). The State responded that, although an earlier, July 2024 notice did not include a copy of the earlier bench warrant, that bench warrant and bond forfeiture were thereafter withdrawn, a new arraignment date was set, Pascu again failed to appear, and a new bond forfeiture and arrest warrant were issued and served on the Surety in compliance with OCGA § 17-6-71(a). 2 A direct appeal is authorized from a judgment absolute on bond forfeiture after an execution hearing. See Anytime Bail Bonding, Inc. v. State, 299 Ga. App. 695, 696 (1) (683 SE2d 358) (2009). judgment of bond forfeiture under OCGA § 9-11-60(d),3 an appeal from the denial of an OCGA § 9-11-60(d) motion requires the filing of an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8), (b); Citation Bonding Co. v. State, 199 Ga. App. 868, 868 (406 SE2d 289) (1991) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction direct appeal from order denying motion to set aside judgment absolute on a bond forfeiture because discretionary application was required). To the extent the Surety sought to appeal the May 20, 2025 judgment of bond forfeiture, its notice of appeal — filed 108 days after the trial court’s entry of that judgment — is untimely as to that order. See OCGA § 5-6-38(a). Even construing the Surety’s motion as a motion to reconsider the judgment of bond forfeiture, the denial of such a motion is not appealable in its own right, and such a motion does not extend the time to appeal the underlying order. See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 510-511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/21/2025 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

3 A motion to set aside a judgment of bond forfeiture can be brought under OCGA § 9-11-60(d) if there is a nonamendable defect which appears upon the face of the record or pleadings. See Osborne Bonding Co. v. State, 163 Ga. App. 648, 649 (295 SE2d 577) (1982).