The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving All In 1 Bonding (AI1 Bonding) and the State of Hawaii. The court's decision, filed on October 19, 2026, addressed a dispute over a bail forfeiture that occurred after a defendant failed to appear for a court hearing. This ruling is significant for bonding companies and defendants in similar situations, as it clarifies the time limits for filing motions to set aside bail forfeitures.
In this case, the State of Hawaii was the plaintiff, while Christopher Adams was the defendant-appellee. AI1 Bonding acted as the surety for Adams, posting a $20,000 bail on January 15, 2025. However, Adams failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, leading to the circuit court's judgment and order of forfeiture on March 20, 2025. The State served AI1 Bonding with notice of this forfeiture order on March 26, 2025. The bonding company filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture on May 6, 2025, which was 41 days after receiving the notice.
The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after AI1 Bonding's motion was denied by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. The circuit court found that the motion was untimely, as it was filed outside the 30-day period allowed by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51. This statute governs the procedures related to bail forfeitures and sets strict timelines for filing motions to contest such forfeitures.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth and Associate Judges Sonja M.P. McCullen and Kimberly T. Guidry, reviewed the case and the arguments presented. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that AI1 Bonding's motion was indeed untimely. The judges referenced HRS § 804-51, which stipulates that a surety must file a motion to set aside a forfeiture within 30 days of receiving notice. The court noted, "HRS § 804-51's thirty-day window for filing a motion to set aside the forfeiture constitutes a jurisdictional requirement that is not waivable by the circuit court."
The court further explained that the circuit court lacked the authority to consider AI1 Bonding's motion because it was filed after the deadline. The judges cited previous cases to support their decision, including State v. Vaimili and State v. Ranger Ins. Co., which emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for such motions.
This ruling has implications for bonding companies and defendants in Hawaii. It reinforces the necessity for sureties to act promptly when faced with a bail forfeiture. The court's decision highlights that missing the 30-day deadline can result in the loss of the opportunity to contest a forfeiture, leaving bonding companies with significant financial liabilities.
Going forward, bonding companies must ensure they are aware of the timelines established by HRS § 804-51 and take immediate action upon receiving notice of a bail forfeiture. This ruling serves as a reminder that the courts strictly enforce these deadlines, and failure to comply can have serious consequences.
As for the future of this case, AI1 Bonding may consider appealing the ruling to a higher court. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases or further legal actions that AI1 Bonding might pursue.