Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-395 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Johnny Ray Rodriguez, a/k/a Misael Bautista-Castro, a/k/a Guadalupe Montalvo, Defendant, Howe Bonding, et al., Appellants. Filed December 15, 2009 Affirmed Shumaker, Judge Mower County District Court File No. 50-CR-08-1228

Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Jeremy Clinefelter, Assistant County Attorney, 201 First Street N.E., Austin, MN 55912 (for respondent) Frank Arend Schulte, 2380 Wycliff Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55114 (for appellants)

Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.

SYLLABUS 1. 2. A bail bond is a surety contract to which principles of contract law apply. A contract, including a bail bond, can be rendered unenforceable for a

mutual but not a unilateral mistake of a material fact. OPINION SHUMAKER , Judge On appeal from the district courts denial of appellants motion to reinstate and discharge a bail bond, appellants argue that the bail bond was an unenforceable contract because of a mutual mistake of fact regarding the defendants identity. Alternatively, appellants contend that they were entitled to reinstatement and discharge of the bond. We disagree with both arguments, and affirm. FACTS On April 13, 2008, police arrested an individual who identified himself as "Johnny Ray Rodriguez." A complaint was filed against "Johnny Ray Rodriguez," but on April 14, the defendant revealed to a bond-study agent and the police that his real name was Misael Bautista-Castro. The defendant also informed police that he had previously used the alias Guadalupe Montalvo. The district court made a record of the defendants aliases at his first appearance on April 15, 2008, and established that his true name was Misael Bautista-Castro. The court then set bail at $50,000. Appellant Howe Bonding is an agent of appellant Minnesota Surety and Trust Company (Minnesota Surety). A bond agent from Howe Bonding was present in court on the day that the defendants true name and aliases were placed on the record. The 2

following day, April 16, 2008, the bond agent agreed to post the $50,000 bond on behalf of the defendant so as to obtain his release from jail. The defendant failed to appear for his trial on August 11, 2008, and the district court issued a bench warrant for his arrest and forfeited the bond. At some point thereafter, agents of Howe Bonding attempted to locate the defendant in Plainview, Texas, and in late September or early October of 2008 discovered that the "real" Johnny Ray Rodriguez was not the defendant for whom the bond had been issued. In February of 2009, Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety moved for reinstatement and discharge of the bond, principally arguing that the bond was a contract that should be avoided entirely because the parties were mutually mistaken about the defendants true identity, or, alternatively, claiming that the bond should be reinstated and discharged because of efforts to locate the defendant. The district court agreed that the bond was a contract, but concluded that there had been no mutual mistake of fact when the contract was formed. It also denied the motion for reinstatement and discharge of the bond. Howe Bonding and Minnesota Surety appealed. ISSUES 1. 2. Is a bail bond a contract? Does the evidence support the district courts determination that the bond

contract could not be avoided on the ground of mutual mistake? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying reinstatement and

discharge of the bond?

3

ANALYSIS I. The threshold question for our review is whether a bail bond is a contract governed by traditional principles of contract law. The district court decided the question in the affirmative, and we agree. "The formation of a contract requires communication of a specific and definite offer, acceptance, and consideration." Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 772, 782 (Minn. App. 2006) (citing Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 626-27 (Minn. 1983)). Suretyships or surety contracts are

characterized by the relationship among three parties: (1) the surety, "who is bound on an obligation from which [the principal], by the discharge of a duty, should relieve him"; (2) the principal, who "in the solution of the rights and duties of the parties, should bear the ultimate burden unless excused for some reason personal to himself"; and (3) the creditor, "to whom the surety is bound and to whom the principal is under an obligation or other duty." Restatement (First) of Security,

Download A09-395, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Johnny Ray Rodriguez, a/k/a Misael

Minnesota Law