State v. Wallace

1997 OK CIV APP 28, 940 P.2d 1212, 68 O.B.A.J. 2027, 1997 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 30, 1997 WL 312720
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 25, 1997
DocketNo. 86877
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1997 OK CIV APP 28 (State v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Wallace, 1997 OK CIV APP 28, 940 P.2d 1212, 68 O.B.A.J. 2027, 1997 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 30, 1997 WL 312720 (Okla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Chief Judge:

Liberty Bonding Company posted a bail bond for Defendant Johnny Ray Wallace. When Wallace failed to appear as ordered, the bond was forfeited. After receiving two stays of execution on the bond forfeiture, Liberty paid the bond amount into court. More than 180 days after receiving notice that the bond was forfeited, Liberty filed an application for remitter under 59 O.S.Supp. 1994 § 1332(D)(2).1 The trial court found the application for remitter was untimely and therefore denied it. Liberty appeals.

The sole basis for Liberty’s appeal is its contention that under § 1332(D)(2) the trial court had the discretion to extend the time [1213]*1213limit for filing an application for remitter and should have done so in this instance. Liberty argues that the Legislature’s use of the word “may” in this statute gives the trial court the discretion to extend the statutory time limit. We disagree.

As used in this statute, the word “may” refers to an act of the bail bondsman or the insurer, not to any action by the trial court. Under Liberty’s contention, the 180-day time limit would be rendered largely nugatory, for the trial court would be free to extend that limitation indefinitely. Read as a whole, this section extends to bail bondsmen and their insurers the ability, if they so choose and can meet the statutory requirements, to obtain a remitter of any assets transferred as a result of a forfeited bail bond if they act within the time limits provided by the statute. This statute, nor any other statute with which we are familiar, makes no provision for an extension of this time limit. Liberty did not act timely, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

JONES, P.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Tate
2012 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2012)
State v. Eubanks
2006 OK CIV APP 29 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 OK CIV APP 28, 940 P.2d 1212, 68 O.B.A.J. 2027, 1997 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 30, 1997 WL 312720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wallace-oklacivapp-1997.