International Fidelity v. Municipal Court

Nevada Supreme Court

International Fidelity v. Municipal Court

DecidedMay 1, 2014

Docket58632

StatusUnpublished

This text of International Fidelity v. Municipal Court (International Fidelity v. Municipal Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Fidelity v. Municipal Court, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND EXON." There was no express reinstatement of the bond in the minutes entered after exoneration. 2 The municipal court proceeded with forfeiture. After the bond was forfeited, the surety moved to set aside the forfeiture. The surety argued that it took no action because the minutes indicated that the bond had been exonerated. After the motion was denied, the surety petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the district court, asking that the district court order the municipal court to set aside the forfeiture. The district court denied the petition and the surety appealed. "[T]he proper mode of review for orders entered in ancillary bail bond proceedings is by an original writ petition." Int? Fid. Ins. Co. ex rel. Blackjack Bonding, Inc. v. State, 122 Nev. 39, 41, 126 P.3d 1133, 1133 (2006). "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion." Id. at 42, 126 P.3d at 1134. "A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (internal quotation omitted). Under NRS 178.506, bail is forfeited after the breach of a condition of the bond. Here, the municipal court exonerated the bond. At that time, the court should have released the bail. NRS 178.522. There should have been no bail left to forfeit at the time of the forfeiture proceedings. Therefore, we hold that the municipal court abused its discretion by forfeiting bail that should have been released with

2The parties did not argue, and we do not address, whether minute orders are ineffectual. See AOB 6-8; RAB 14-16.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 I947A exoneration of the bond. The district court abused its discretion by not issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the municipal court to set aside the erroneous forfeiture. On remand, the district court shall issue that writ. Accordingly we, ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

A Hardesty tist Peastin J.

Douglas

, J.

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas Las Vegas City Attorney/Criminal Division Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1047A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BOND EXON." There was no express reinstatement of the bond in the minutes entered after exoneration. 2 The municipal court proceeded with forfeiture. After the bond was forfeited, the surety moved to set aside the forfeiture. The surety argued that it took no action because the minutes indicated that the bond had been exonerated. After the motion was denied, the surety petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the district court, asking that the district court order the municipal court to set aside the forfeiture. The district court denied the petition and the surety appealed. "[T]he proper mode of review for orders entered in ancillary bail bond proceedings is by an original writ petition." Int? Fid. Ins. Co. ex rel. Blackjack Bonding, Inc. v. State, 122 Nev. 39, 41, 126 P.3d 1133, 1133 (2006). "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion." Id. at 42, 126 P.3d at 1134. "A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. „ 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (internal quotation omitted). Under NRS 178.506, bail is forfeited after the breach of a condition of the bond. Here, the municipal court exonerated the bond. At that time, the court should have released the bail. NRS 178.522. There should have been no bail left to forfeit at the time of the forfeiture proceedings. Therefore, we hold that the municipal court abused its discretion by forfeiting bail that should have been released with