Judges Opinions, — April 30, 2024 13:52 — 0 Comments

Estate of Dolores V. Uhler, by her Executrix, Debra A. Binkley

Estate of Dolores V. Uhler, by her Executrix, Debra A. Binkley

Civil Action-Estate Law-Bail-Reason-Forfeiture-Failure to Appear for Criminal Proceedings-Death of Defendant-Remittance of Forfeited Bail-Equitable Principles-Discretion of the Court-Factors Considered-Mitigating Circumstances

Dolores V. Uhler, who passed away on January 31, 2021, and her daughter, Debra A. Binkley, who was appointed the Executor of her Estate, signed a surety agreement on November 12, 2019 agreeing to indemnify Blackman Bail Bonds in the amount of $150.000.00 for bail set that amount for her son, Robert P. Uhler, who had been charged with numerous sex offenses alleged to have been perpetrated against a minor victim.  Robert P. Uhler failed to appear for trial as scheduled.  Bail was revoked and a bench warrant was issued.  A judgment subsequently was entered by confession in favor of Blackman Bail Bonds against Dolores V. Uhler and Debra A. Binkley.  Following the death of Dolores V. Uhler, the Estate paid Blackman Bail Bonds $150,000.00 from the proceeds so that the real estate would be released from a judgment lien.  Following that payment, Blackman Bail Bonds satisfied its judgment and agreed to return funds to the Estate upon receipt of an Order releasing Blackman Bail Bonds from its obligation to pay bail to Lebanon County.  On July 27, 2021, Robert P. Uhler was located and died in a confrontation with US Marshalls.  The charges in the criminal action were dismissed on December 27, 2021.  Debra A. Binkley has filed a Petition asking for an order exonerating Blackman Bail Bonds from any obligation concerning the bail agreement and requesting that $125,000.00 of the funds be returned to the Estate with $25,000.00 covering the bond liability and expenses associated with the criminal matter.  The Lebanon County District Attorney’s Office and the County of Lebanon have contested the release of the funds.

1.  Following forfeiture of bail, the funds deposited to secure a defendant’s appearance or compliance with a condition of bail technically become the property of the county.

2.  The bail bond remains subject to exoneration, set aside or remittance by the court.

3.  Equitable principles apply when a court is faced with the decision of whether to modify or to remit a forfeiture.

4.  The purpose of allowing remission of bail bond forfeitures is to encourage bondspersons to participate in the return of defendants for trial. 

5.  In determining whether a forfeiture should be remitted, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances in each case including whether the applicant is a commercial bondsperson, the extent of the bondsperson’s supervision of the defendant, whether defendant’s breach of the bail conditions was willful, any explaining or mitigating factors presented by the defendant, the deterrence value of the forfeiture, the seriousness of the condition violated, whether the forfeiture will vindicate the injury to the public interest as a result of the breach, the appropriateness of the amount of the recognizance of bail and the cost, inconvenience, prejudice or potential prejudice to the Commonwealth as a result of the breach. 

6.  Mitigating circumstances refer to any explanation for the defendant’s conduct in violating the terms of the bail bond and not arguments explaining the conduct of the surety and why the results only minimally prejudiced the Commonwealth.

7.  A bail forfeiture as to a family member’s property should be enforced only as to a defendant’s failure to appear. 

8.  In light of the fact that Robert P. Uhler’s failure to appear was willful with no mitigating factors presented for his absence, the record reflects little effort made by Blackman Bail Bonds to return him to the jurisdiction, Rober P. Uhler’s failure to appear and fugitive status caused considerable delay and expenditure of time and the only parties who will suffer true financial loss at this point are beneficiaries of the Estate, partial remission of $100,000.00 of the forfeited funds is appropriate in this case with $50,000.00 remaining forfeited to the County.

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2021-262, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, February 13, 2023.     

          IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                PENNSYLVANIA

                                                CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :         NO. CP-38-CR-02-2020

                                                                   :

          v.                                                       :

                                                                   :

ROBERT P. UHLER                                            :

                                                ORDER OF COURT

          AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2023, in accordance with the Order of Court issued on this date at No. 2021-262 of the Orphans’ Court Division, it is hereby Ordered that the bail forfeited to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the amount of $150,000.00 in this action is remitted as follows:  $50,000.00 shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth/District Attorney of Lebanon County and $100,000.00 shall be disbursed to the Estate of Dolores V. Uhler, by her Executrix, Debra A. Binkley, No. 2021-262 – Orphans’ Court Division.  Blackman Bail Bonds is exonerated from any obligation regarding the bail posted in this matter.

                                                          BY THE COURT:

                                                          _________________________, P.J.

                                                          JOHN C. TYLWALK

JCT/jah

Cc:  Nichole Eisenhart, Esquire/First Assistant District Attorney

       John M. Zimmerman, Esquire/466 Jonestown Road/Jonestown, PA  17038

       Blackman Bail Bonds/611 Wood Street/Harrisburg, PA  17109

       David Warner, Esquire

       Leslie Fillak/Court Administration

       Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk

          IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                PENNSYLVANIA

                                                CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :         NO. CP-38-CR-02-2020

                                                                   :

          v.                                                       :

                                                                   :

ROBERT P. UHLER                                            :

                                                ORDER OF COURT

          AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2023, in accordance with the Orders entered in this criminal action and at No. 2021-2621 of the Orphans’ Court Division on February 13, 2023, and it appearing to the Court that Blackman Bail Bonds has retained possession of the judgmentis hereby Ordered that the bail forfeited to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the amount of $150,000.00 in this action is remitted as follows:  $50,000.00 shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth/District Attorney of Lebanon County and $100,000.00 shall be disbursed to the Estate of Dolores V. Uhler, by her Executrix, Debra A. Binkley, No. 2021-262 – Orphans’ Court Division.  Blackman Bail Bonds is exonerated from any obligation regarding the bail posted in this matter.

                                                          BY THE COURT:

                                                          _________________________, P.J.

                                                          JOHN C. TYLWALK

JCT/jah

Cc:  Nichole Eisenhart, Esquire/First Assistant District Attorney

       John M. Zimmerman, Esquire/466 Jonestown Road/Jonestown, PA  17038

       Blackman Bail Bonds/611 Wood Street/Harrisburg, PA  17109

       David Warner, Esquire

       Leslie Fillak/Court Administration

       Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk

                   IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                PENNSYLVANIA

                                         ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

ESTATE OF DOLORES V. UHLER           :         NO. 2021-262

By her Executrix,                               :

DEBRA A. BINKLEY,                               :

                   Petitioner                       :

APPEARANCES:

JOHN M. ZIMMERMAN, ESQUIRE                FOR PETITIONER

NICHOLE EISENHART, ESQUIRE                           FOR THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY                 ATTORNEY

DAVID WARNER, ESQUIRE                           FOR THE COUNTY OF LEBANON BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES

OPINION, TYLWALK, P.J., FEBRUARY 13, 2023.

          Dolores V. Uhler (“Dolores”) died on January 31, 2021.  Her daughter, Debra A. Binkley (“Debra”) was appointed Executrix of her Estate and Letters Testamentary were issued on March 11, 2021.  (Exhibit “2”)  Dolores’s residence at 1673 North 7th Street in Lebanon was the only substantial asset of her estate.  That property was sold for a net amount of $166,000.00 on May 4, 2021. 

          Dolores was also the mother of Robert P. Uhler (“Robert”).  On October 18, 2019, Robert was charged with numerous sexual offenses against a minor victim at Action No. CP-38-CR-02-2020 (“the criminal action”) and bail was set at $150,000.00.  On November 12, 2019, Dolores and Debra signed a surety agreement to indemnify Adam Szar of Blackman Bail Bonds in the amount of $150,000.00 if bail was forfeited in the criminal action.  Mr. Szar posted bail and Robert was released from custody.

          Defendant’s jury trial in the criminal action was scheduled for the September 2020 Term of Criminal Jury Trials; however, Defendant failed to appear.   Upon the Commonwealth’s Motion, the court revoked Defendant’s bail and a bail modification hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2020.  Defendant failed to appear for the hearing and also failed to appear for jury selection on September 21, 2020.  On September 21, 2020, Blackman Bail Bonds filed a Request for Judgment against Dolores and Debra with the Prothonotary of Lebanon County at Action No. 2020-01094.  A confessed judgment in favor of Blackman Bail Bonds and against Dolores and Debra was entered on that date. 

The jury trial commenced on September 24, 2020 and Defendant was convicted in absentia.  Defendant’s bail was revoked and a Bench Warrant was issued as a result of his failure to appear. (Exhibits  “11”and “12”) 

A bail piece was issued to Adam Szar on September 29, 2020.  (Exhibit “13”)  A Notice of Revocation and Intent to Forfeit Bail was issued on July 2, 2021.  (Exhibit “14”) The Notice provided:

          To the Defendant and All Sureties listed below:

          You are hereby notified that because Defendant failed to Failure to appear for jury trial, the defendant’s release on bail is revoked.  In addition, the monetary condition of release in the amount of $150000.00 may be forfeited.

A monetary condition of release has been set and posted in the above-captioned case in the amount of $150000.00.

The Sureties listed below have posted security, as indicated, for the above-named Defendant, to satisfy the monetary condition of release in the amount of $150000.00.

          SURETY:             SECURITY TYPE:                  AMOUNT POSTED:

          Szar, Adam Naim Surety Bonds                         $150,000.00

Ninety (90) days from the date of service of this notice the forfeiture may be executed.

(Exhibit “14”)  The Recipient List for the Notice included Szar, several witnesses (not Dolores or Binkley), and Defendant.[1] (Exhibit “14”)

When Dolores’ home was sold after her death, the Estate paid Blackman Bail Bonds the amount of $150,000.00 from the proceeds so that the real estate would be released from the judgment lien.  After payment of the $150,000.00, Blackman Bail Bonds satisfied its judgment and agreed to return the funds to the Estate upon receipt of a Court Order releasing Black Bail Bonds from its obligation to pay bail to Lebanon County. 

On or about July 27, 2021, Robert was located and shot during a confrontation with U.S. Marshalls during his arrest in Tioga County, Pennsylvania.  (Exhibit “6”)  Robert died as a result of his wounds and the charges in the criminal action were nol prossed by Order of Court dated December 27, 2021.

On May 6, 2022, Debra filed a Petition Seeking Release of Bail Agreement asking the Court to issue an Order exonerating Blackman Bail Bonds and its principals, Steve Blackman and Adam Szar, from any obligations concerning the bail agreement in Robert’s criminal matter and asking that the funds be released to Dolores’s Estate and distributed in accordance with the Proposed Distribution of the Accounting.  Debra indicates that the sole residuary beneficiaries of Dolores’s Estate are her three daughters, who will receive a twenty-five percent share each, and Robert’s four children, who will share his twenty-five percent share.  Debra prepared an Accounting for Dolores’s Estate setting forth a Proposed Distribution with and without the return of the $150,000.00. 

We scheduled a hearing on the Petition for June 23, 2022.  On the day prior to the hearing, July 22, 2022, Blackman filed a Joinder and Assignment providing:

I, Steven Blackman, of Blackman Bail Bonds, do hereby join in the Petition filed by the Estate of Dolores V. Uhler for the release of the Bail Agreement entered in the criminal case of Robert P. Uhler, No. CP-38-000002-2020.  All of the statements set forth in said Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.  Additionally, I provided information to the police, including a lead that Robert P. Uhler was residing in Tioga County, Pennsylvania.

I also hereby assign all of my rights as surety under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5747.1 to the Estate of Dolores V. Uhler.

(Joinder and Assignment, filed July 22, 2022).

          Representatives from the District Attorney’s Office and the County Solicitor appeared at the hearing to contest the Petition.  Both informed the Court that they would stipulate to the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Petition but disagreed with the release of the funds. (N.T. 4-5)   Szar and Blackman were notified of the hearing date, but did not appear. 

          The Estate presented the testimony of Debra at the hearing.  Debra testified that she and Dolores had provided the collateral for Robert’s bail by signing the judgment for Blackman Bail Bond in the amount of $150,000.00 on November 12, 2019.  (Exhibit “3”)  Debra understood that she and Dolores were thereby obligated to pay $150,000.00 if Robert did not appear for his trial.  She received a Request for Judgment from Blackman Bail Bonds notifying her that a judgment had been entered based on the document they had signed on November 12, 2019.  (Exhibit “4”)  When Dolores’s real estate was sold, Binkley satisfied the judgment which had been entered by Blackman Bail Bonds with the proceeds.

          The Estate’s attorney requested release of the bail agreement by correspondence of June 24, 2021 and August 2, 2021 to the District Attorney and the County Solicitor.  (Exhibit “7”)  The August 2, 2021 letter notified the County officials that Robert had been killed in a shootout with the U.S. Marshalls on July 27, 2021.  (Exhibit “6”)  In both letters, the Estate’s attorney requested that the amount of the bail be reduced to $25,000.00 which would cover the bond liability and expenses associated with the criminal matter. 

          Debra explained that she had been contacted by the police on numerous occasions and that she had always cooperated with them.  She did not know where Robert was after he disappeared and she did nothing to hinder his apprehension.  To her knowledge, the County officials did not respond to the requests made in the letters of June 24, 2021 and August 2, 2021 and she never received notice that a forfeiture was being sought.  Steve Blackman and Adam Szar had agreed to return the $150,000.00 to the Estate if the Court would exonerate them from responsibility.  Debra indicated that she would distribute the funds to the Estate’s beneficiaries in accordance with the First and Final Account if the Petition was granted.  (Exhibit “8”) 

          On cross-examination by the First Assistant District Attorney,  Debra confirmed that neither she nor Dolores had taken any action to challenge the judgment which entered against them on September 21, 2021.  She also acknowledged that Robert was wanted on the outstanding warrants in his criminal matter when he was killed on July 27, 2021.  She insisted that she had not resisted the police efforts to apprehend Robert and had offered her phone records to the police.

          On questioning by the Court, Debra explained that she had informed both the County Detectives and the Bail Bondsman and other bounty hunters places where Robert might be located.  She did not know that Robert was in Tioga County.  She allowed the police access to her phones, but she did not know whether her phone records had ever been checked. 

          The notes of the hearing have been transcribed and the parties have filed post-hearing Briefs.  The matter is now before us for disposition.

          In her Petition, Binkley requests that $125,000.00 of the forfeited $150,000.00 be paid to the Estate and distributed to Dolores’s heirs.  It is the County’s position that since the entire $150,000.00 has been forfeited, it should remain the property of the County. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 536 provides, in part:

Rule 536. Procedures Upon Violation of Conditions: Revocation of Release and Forfeiture; Bail Pieces; Exoneration of Surety

  • Sanctions

(2) Forfeiture

  • When a monetary condition of release has been imposed and the defendant has violated a condition of the bail bond, the bail authority may order the cash or other security forfeited and shall state in writing or on the record the reasons for so doing. When the surety is a third party, the cash or other security may be ordered forfeited only when the condition of the bail bond violated is that the defendant has failed to appear for a scheduled court proceeding.

(b) Written notice of the forfeiture shall be given to the defendant and any surety, either personally or by both first class and certified mail at the defendant’s and the surety’s last known addresses.

(c) The forfeiture shall not be executed until 90 days after notice of the forfeiture order.

(d) The bail authority may direct that a forfeiture be set aside or remitted as provided by law or if justice does not require the full enforcement of the forfeiture order.

(C) Exoneration

(1) A bail authority, as provided by law or as justice requires, shall exonerate a surety who deposits cash in the amount of any forfeiture ordered or who surrenders the defendant in a timely manner.

(2) When the conditions of the bail bond have been satisfied, or the forfeiture has been set aside or remitted, the bail authority shall exonerate the obligors and release any bail.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 536 (A)(2)(a)-(d), (C)(1)-(2).

After forfeiture, the money deposited to secure the defendant’s appearance or compliance with the conditions of the bail bond technically becomes the property of the county.  …  However, the bail bond remains subject to exoneration, set-aside, or remittance by the court. …  A forfeiture, once declared by the court, may be set aside or remitted as justice requires. …  Equitable principles apply when a court is faced with the decision whether to modify or remit a forfeiture.

Commonwealth v. Gaines, 74 A.3d 1947, 1050-1051 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied 89 A.3d 1283 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).    

Binkley contends that the forfeiture should be set aside pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5747.1 which provides, in part:

§ 5747.1. Forfeited undertaking

  •  General rule.—If a defendant in a criminal prosecution fails to appear for any scheduled court proceeding, the defendant’s bail may be revoked and notice of revocation shall serve as notice of intent to forfeit the bail of the defendant.  The notice or order of revocation shall be served by the office of the clerk to the defendant, surety or bail bondsman and insurer who has issued the qualifying power of attorney for the bail bondsman by certified mail, return receipt requested.
  • Payment.–The following shall apply:
  • Ninety days from the date of the service of the notice of revocation or order of revocation, the revocation shall become a judgment of forfeiture, payment of which shall be immediately required by the defendant or surety. Failure of a bail bondsman to make a timely payment of a forfeiture judgment shall result in the district attorney or county solicitor commencing proceedings to suspend or nonrenew the license of the bail bondsman otherwise consistent with section 5746 (relating to suspension or revocation of authority to conduct business in a county).

(5) If the defendant is recovered after the 91st day following the forfeiture, a surety may petition the court in which the revocation and forfeiture occurred to remit all or a portion of the funds collected in exchange for the absence of the defendant. The court shall remit payment as follows:

  • If the defendant is recovered between the 91st day and six months after the order of revocation or forfeiture, the surety shall recover the full value of the forfeited amount of the bond, less an administrative fee in the amount of $250.
  • If the defendant is recovered between six months and one year after the order of revocation or forfeiture, the surety shall recover 80% of the value of the forfeited amount of the bond.
  •  If the defendant is recovered between one and two years after the order of revocation or forfeiture, the surety shall recover 50% of the value of the forfeited amount of the bond.

(6) No third-party surety shall be responsible to render payment on a forfeited undertaking if the revocation of bail is sought for failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions of the defendant’s release other than appearance. Any violation of performance conditions by a defendant shall be deemed as a violation of a court order, subject to a conviction for indirect contempt of court for violating a court order instituting terms and conditions of release of the defendant and all associated penalties.

42 Pa.C.S.A. §5747.1(b)(1),(5), (6).

Pursuant to Rule 536(A)(20(d), a bail authority may direct that a forfeiture of cash or other security after the violation of a condition of the bail bond be set aside or remitted as provided by law or if justice does not require the full enforcement of the forfeiture order.

The allowance or denial of a remission of forfeiture of a bail bond is entirely within the sound discretion of the court.  The exercise of such discretionary power to remit a forfeited bail bond should be based on sufficient legal and equitable grounds, and each case must be considered on its own factual basis.

          It is not necessary that a request to remit a bail bond forfeiture be granted or denied in its entirety; the court may grant a partial remission if it determines that such a result is equitable.

30 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d §140:46. 

          The purpose of allowing remission of bail bond forfeitures is to encourage bondsmen to participate in the return of the defendant for trial.  Commonwealth v. Jones, 429 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 1981).  In determining whether a forfeiture should be remitted, the court should consider

  • Whether the applicant is a commercial bondsman; (2) the extent of the

bondsman’s supervision of the defendant; (3) whether the defendant’s breach of the recognizance of bail conditions was willful; (4) any explanation or mitigating factors presented by the defendant; (5) the deterrence value of forfeiture; (6) the seriousness of the condition violated; (7) whether forfeiture will vindicate the injury to public interest suffered as a result of the breach; (8) the appropriateness of the amount of the recognizance of bail; and (9) the cost, inconvenience, prejudice or potential prejudice suffered by the State as a result of the breach.

Commonwealth v Culver, 2015 WL 7289609 (unpublished non-precedential decision) (Pa. Super. 2015), citing Commonwealth v. Hann, 81 A.3d 57, 67-68 (Pa. 2013).  “Mitigating circumstances” refers to any explanation for the defendant’s conduct in violating the terms of his bail bond and not arguments explaining the conduct of the surety and why the results only minimally prejudiced the Commonwealth.”  Culver, 2015 WL 7289509  at *4.  The “list is not exhaustive, and trial courts may consider other factors as interests of justice require.”  Id.  “Hann does not require trial courts to discuss each of the enumerated factors in detail; the enumerated factors are only some potentially relevant considerations.  Id. Forfeiture decisions should be based upon an examination of the totality of the circumstances presented in the individual case, and no one point or factor should be talismanic in making that determination.  Id.      

          A trial court’s decision refusing to vacate a forfeiture will be disturbed only if the aggrieved party shows an abuse of discretion, i.e., the court misapplied the law, exercised manifestly unreasonable judgment, or acted on the basis of bias, partiality, or ill will to the party’s detriment.  Commonwealth v. Brown, 2017 WL 1733772 (Pa. Super. 2017) at *1.  Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5747.1(b)(6) and Rule 536(A)(2), bail forfeitures as to a family member’s property should only be enforced as to a defendant’s failure to appear.  Commonwealth v. Persavage, 2018 WL 5317646 (Pa. Super. 2017).  The matter of an appropriate situation for forfeiture has always been within the discretion of the trial judge.  Id. at *5 citing Commonwealth v. Hann, supra. 

          A “bail bondsman” is defined as “[a] person who engages in the business of giving bail as a surety for compensation.”  42 Pa.C.S.A. §5741.  A “surety” is defined as “[a] person who pledges security, whether or not for compensation, in exchange for the release from custody of a person charged with a crimes prior to adjudication.”  Id.  As noted by the Commonwealth, Blackman Bail Bonds pledged security in exchange for Robert’s release on bail.  In order to effectuate Defendant’s release on bail, Dolores and Debra signed an agreement to indemnify Blackman Bail Bonds in the event that Robert failed to appear for proceedings in his criminal matter. 

We will evaluate the circumstances of this matter with regard to the factors listed above, keeping in mind Blackman Bail Bonds’ joinder in the Petition and assignment of rights to the Estate. We first note that Defendant’s failure to appear was willful and there were no mitigating factors for his absence.  Defendant attempted to fake his own suicide and disappeared prior to the date set for his jury trial.  (Exhibit “6”) With regard to the conduct of Blackman and Szar, we note the lack of evidence regarding efforts made by them to secure Defendant’s return to this jurisdiction despite a bail piece being issued.  Neither of them appeared at the hearing and the only indication of such efforts on their part is Szar’s statement in the Joinder and Assignment claiming that he told authorities that Defendant might be living in Tioga County. 

With respect to prejudice and inconvenience, Defendant’s failure to appear and fugitive status did cause considerable delay and the expenditure of time, manpower and expense in law enforcement’s efforts to recover Defendant.  In addition, although the jury trial proceeded in absentia, Defendant’s absence required several proceedings before the Court regarding the revocation of bail.  His continued absence after the jury trial also required continued vigilance and monitoring of the case on the part of the Commonwealth.   The victim of Uhler’s crimes was also deprived of retribution which would have been provided via a trial and sentencing proceeding with Uhler’s presence.

Turning to the equities of this situation, we note that a refusal to remit at least a portion of the forfeited funds will do little to encourage bail bondsmen to take a more active role in recovering fugitives in the future.  Blackman Bail Bonds has no real financial stake at this point as the judgment lien has been satisfied from the proceeds of the sale of Dolores’s residence.  The only parties who will suffer a true financial loss at this point are the beneficiaries of Dolores’s Estate, who are all member of Robert’s immediate family and include his four children.  All of these individuals have undoubtedly already suffered overwhelming grief and anguish brought about by the severity and nature of the charges against Robert, his disappearance and disregard of his bail obligations, and his subsequent death in a shootout with U.S. Marshalls as they attempted to arrest him after his conviction on these charges. 

          In conclusion, we believe that a partial remission is appropriate given the relative hardships experienced by the Commonwealth and the individuals who are the beneficiaries of Dolores’s Estate.  Debra has proposed a forfeiture of $25,000.00 of the funds and remission of the remaining $125,000.00.  However, in view of the substantial inconvenience and expense sustained by the Commonwealth, we believe a forfeiture of $50,000.00 is more appropriate.  Thus, we will issue an Order exonerating Blackman Bail Bonds of its obligations, and remitting $100,000.00 of the forfeited funds to be released to the Estate.


[1] The Notice was sent to Defendant at Dolores’ residence on North 7th Street in the City of Lebanon.

About the author

Ben has written 982 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal

Search