The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that affirms the forfeiture of a bail bond issued by Shaka Bail LLC on behalf of Roshawn Biton. This decision, made on May 27, 2026, affects Shaka Bail and highlights the strict timelines and procedures involved in bail forfeiture cases in Hawaii.
The case began when Roshawn Biton failed to appear in court for his arraignment on March 24, 2025. Following his absence, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit issued a judgment and order of forfeiture for the $30,000 bail bond that Shaka Bail had issued for him. The court's decision to forfeit the bond was based on the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 804-51, which mandates that a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture must be filed within 30 days of the notice of forfeiture.
Shaka Bail's legal troubles began when it attempted to contest the forfeiture. The company’s counsel emailed the proposed motion to the Circuit Court on April 20, 2025, but did not officially file it until May 16, 2025. The Circuit Court subsequently denied the motion on June 4, 2025, ruling that it was filed too late, as it exceeded the 30-day limit established by state law.
The parties involved in this case include the State of Hawaii as the plaintiff-appellee and Shaka Bail LLC as the real party in interest-appellant. The Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Kevin A. Souza, was tasked with addressing the bail forfeiture after Biton's failure to appear.
In its ruling, the Intermediate Court of Appeals, composed of Presiding Judge Katherine G. Leonard and Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Daniel M. Gluck, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court noted that Shaka Bail raised three main points of error in its appeal. However, the court found that Shaka Bail had waived its arguments regarding the effectiveness of service upon its insurer and the applicability of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure by not presenting them in the Circuit Court.
The court ruled, "Shaka Bail did not make any argument to the Circuit Court that service was ineffective, however. Accordingly, this argument has been waived."
The court also addressed Shaka Bail's claim that the law governing bail forfeiture violated due process. However, it concluded that this argument was also waived, as it was not raised in the lower court.
The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal matters. The court stated, "pursuant to HRCP Rule 81(a)(8), the rules of civil procedure do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings," reinforcing the notion that bail bond cases follow specific statutory guidelines that must be strictly observed.
This decision has significant implications for bail bond companies and defendants in Hawaii. It clarifies the necessity for timely action when contesting bail forfeitures and underscores the legal principle that failure to comply with procedural requirements can result in the loss of rights to appeal or contest decisions.
Moving forward, this ruling serves as a cautionary tale for bail bond companies. They must ensure that they file any motions or appeals within the designated time frames to avoid forfeiting their rights. The case also highlights the importance of understanding the specific laws governing bail forfeiture in Hawaii.
As for Shaka Bail, the company has the option to appeal this ruling to the Hawaii Supreme Court, should it choose to pursue further legal action. However, details about any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.