"[B]ail will be exonerated where the performance of the condition is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee [State], or the act of law," pursuant to Taylor v. Taintor, an 1872 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 29, 2010, the defendant, Noor Al-Hooti, a citizen of Pakistan, was arrested on charges of felony and misdemeanor larcenies and felony criminal mischief. The petitioner, 3-D Bail Bond Co., posted a $100,000 bond, within an hour of the defendant's arrest, and the defendant was released. On Aug. 10, 2010, the defendant was arrested on misdemeanor charges, and the petitioner posted a $5,000 bond. The defendant's cases were consolidated, and when he failed to appear in court on Jan. 14, 2011, the petitioner bail bondsman forfeited $105,000 in bonds. In February 2011, an immigration judge ordered the defendant's deportation. Allegedly, the defendant remained in the U.S. until July 14, 2011, when he voluntarily boarded a flight from New York to Pakistan. The petitioner argued that even if the petitioner's agents traveled to Pakistan, located the defendant and attempted to return with the defendant to the U.S., they would not be allowed to enter, because of the February 2011 deportation order. The petitioner argued it should not be required to forfeit the $105,000 in bonds, because the defendant's return has been made "impossible" as a result of the deportation order. The state objected that the defendant departed voluntarily, as opposed to because an immigration judge issued an order of deportation, and it would be conjecture to find that immigration authorities would not permit the petitioner's agent and the defendant to enter the U.S., if the petitioner located the defendant in Pakistan. The court found that the petitioner failed to keep a vigilant eye on the defendant. The petitioner promised to present the defendant in court on a certain date or to forfeit the bonds. The deportation order did not prevent the petitioner from meeting its obligation. The petitioner failed to produce the petitioner, and the court denied the petitioner's request for the return of the $105,000 in bonds.

VIEW FULL CASE