As this post is written, we know what is in the budget repair bill passed by the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly, but we don't know for sure what will become law because Governor Walker has not announced what items he may seek to eliminate (or modify) using Wisconsin's formidable line item veto. Pending any surprises, here are highlights, or lowlights, of what the legislation does concerning legal issues Moen Ehrsam & Kroner S.C. is likely to face for clients.
The change that will affect the most people is probably the decision to increase the jurisdictional limit for small claims cases to $10,000. This new limit is set to take effect on July 1, 2011. Under previous law, the highest amount of money that could be awarded as a judgment in small claims court was $5,000. Doubling the amount of money possible to be awarded will make it practical to pursue many more cases in small claims court than was previously the case.
This is good because small claims court generally provides people with a venue to get their disputes resolved quicker and with less formal procedures, meaning that it is cheaper than having to proceed with a regular lawsuit. On the other hand, increasing the limits means people may have substantially more money at risk in a small claims case, making it increasingly risky to handle a small claims case without an attorney (as many people used to do). This increased limit of $10,000 does not apply to claims for personal (bodily) injury.
The legislature also authorizes bail bondsmen to conduct business in Wisconsin. In the past, no one could be in the business of collecting a fee to post bond for someone accused of a crime. The person accused, or family or friends, had to come up with the cash to post bond if cash bond was required. As part of its business friendly agenda, Wisconsin now allows bail bondsmen to collect a fee (expected to be about 10% of the amount of cash bond required by the court) to post bond for a defendant.
On the surface, this seems like a win / win proposition. Defendants can get out by posting less bond than previously required, the bond business gets to make money (from the fees) and the Court has a good solvent party to collect the entire bond from if the defendant does not show up for court or otherwise violates the conditions of his bond. However, it is not clear the picture will be so rosy.
Now, most defendants are released on a signature bond without having to post cash at all. Fears are that signature bonds will disappear. There are also concerns about "bond inflation." Will Judges who used to require $1,000 cash bond on a given set of facts now increase their bond decision to $10,000 knowing a defendant can get out by posting only 10%? Moreover, when a defendant posts cash now, that money is refunded in full at the end of the case (unless used to pay fines, etc). Money paid to a bail bondsman is gone forever.
Finally, what happens if a person who has paid a bail bondsman fails to appear? The bail bondsman has to pay the Court the full amount of the bond. But the bail bondsman does not then just write off the loss as the cost of doing business. No, the bail bondsman goes hunting for the defendant so he can "arrest" the defendant and cart him back to the Court to get the bond paid back. States that allow bail bondsmen have a rich history of abuses by bail bondsmen engaged in the process of "arresting" their customers. They break down doors, engage in gun fights and high speed chases, and do whatever they deem necessary to attempt to get their money back.
I fear the legislature made a mistake by adding this law authorizing bail bondsmen to the budget bill where it might become law without going through the public hearings and debates needed to adequately consider all the pros and cons of this change. It remains to be seen whether this legislation is, on balance, a good idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment