No.
Opinion
Mr. Harry O. Lawson State Court Administrator Judicial Department 323 State Capitol Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Mr. Lawson:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS
You have requested my opinions on the following questions. It is considered preferable to answer them in inverse order;
1. Is it constitutionally proper, or is there any constitutional impediment, for the courts to file and record with the county clerks and ex-officio recorders of deeds, real property bonds executed pursuant to (sections
In my opinion, there is no constitutional impediment for the courts to order or ensure that a property bond be recorded as a lien against the property offered as security.
2. Are the courts required to pay the county clerks and ex-officio recorders of deeds the fees prescribed by section
In my opinion, there is no exemption to the courts from paying such recording fees. Further, I feel that the costs of recording a property bond and for releasing such bond should be borne by the person applying for the bond or the surety posting the real estate for such bond.
ANALYSIS
Regarding question #1, ordinary business prudence would appear to demand such recordation, otherwise the People's interest in such property would not be fully protected. Where the collateral security taken by a creditor requires some act such as filing or recording to insure against its impairment and assure its validity against innocent purchasers, it is the duty of the creditor to see that such act is performed. See 74 Am.Jur.2d § 93. If he neglects such duty to record or file and as a result the security is lost or impaired, the surety may be discharged to the extent of the loss. Behlen v. FirstNational Bank,
The court has the duty to determine the amount of bail and type of bond which it deems sufficient to assure compliance with the conditions set forth in the bail bond. C.R.S. 1973,
Regarding question #2, as opined above, the recording or filing is necessary to ensure market value in event of forfeiture. These recording costs are directly occasioned by the application for bond, and are similar to title searches, ownership and encumbrance documentation, appraisal fees, or other costs which may be necessary to establish market value.
It is recognized that Colorado Supreme Court opinion has held that municipalities and counties exist for the convenient administration of government and are instruments of the state to carry out its will. Commissioners v. Denver,
However, it must be further recognized and emphasized that the principal beneficiary of the property bond procedure is the defendant who is released, and not the court, the county, or the People, who at most are contingent beneficiaries only in the event of forfeiture. Hence, the county is not taxing the state, in violation of the spirit of article
There does not appear to be any statutory provision prohibiting the court from collecting and immediately disbursing monies necessary to pay the statutorily required fee for recording a property bond and any specific and direct charges necessary to establish the market value of the property offered as security. However, no additional fee may be levied to pay for the pure administrative costs in processing the property bond application in the absence of any statutory authority therefor. See and compare Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver § 152.14 (1965 Rev.) which authorizes such fee; see also C.R.S. 1973,
SUMMARY
Thus, it is my opinion that the courts may require or order a property bond to be recorded with the county clerk or recorder, and that the costs of such recording should be borne by either the defendant or the surety posting the property.
Very truly yours,
J.D. MacFARLANE Attorney General
BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE SECURITIES PROPERTY, REAL
C.R.S. 1973,
Colo. Const. art.
JUDICIAL BRANCH Judicial Department
Holding that the courts may require or order a property bond to be recorded with the county clerk or recorder and costs of such recording should be borne by either the defendant or the surety posting the property bond.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. (No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.