Facts: Bail Bond Company’s bonding privileges were suspended due to violation of a local rule requiring a bonding agent be present for a defendant’s first court appearance.
Appellate Decision: The intermediate court reversed, holding that because the rules already require a bonding company require the company to notify the defendant of upcoming court appearances, the appearance requirement “is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal” because it “appears to be redundant and places an additional burden on the bonding company.”
Review Granted: August 16, 2019.
Prediction: Ben thinks the supreme court will affirm in part and reverse impart. While arguably unnecessary, the appearance requirement does not rise to the level of being “arbitrary, capricious, and illegal.” However, noncompliance with the local rule in two isolated cases does not merit wholesale suspension of bonding privileges, particularly when there has been no violation of the conditions specified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-125(a).