We are developing new bond procedures and could use some help. If a bondsman enters into an agreed judgment prior to final forfeiture, is he then precluded from using the exoneration statute?

Once a final judgment is entered (whether or not based on an agreement), it would seem any defensive issue was waived. If, however, the judgment is not "agreed to" at the time of the hearing under art. 22.14, then the last sentence of art. 22.125 is inapplicable. Possibly if a cause for exoneration was unknown at the time of trial it might serve as the basis for a new trial under art. 22.17 or Tex.R.Civ.P. 320, but such a claim should not otherwise affect the finality of the judgment. I do not think you can reach a binding agreement for a surety to waive a cause for exoneration; it is either raised, or not.

My take on agreements is that we can agree to darn near anything. An agreement avoids risk. By doing an early agreement, a bondsman can avoid more financial damage. The fact that he guessed wrong shouldn't change the agreement.

It's a lot like plea bargaining.

The correct answer may be a bit more complex. You used the terminology "agreed judgment". I believe cases such as Alcantar, 47 S.W.3d 815 would prohibit entry of an agreed judgment where consent to the judgment has been withdrawn. John may be quite accurate in stating the State could seek to enforce the settlement agreement as a binding contract, but that does not result in an "agreed judgment". But, assuming the facts validly gave rise to exoneration, it appears to me the contract is likely without consideration. The surety gave up complete exoneration in return for a partial release of liability that never legally existed. In any event, such a settlement agreement would have to be very carefully drafted (and comply with Rule 11).

At least in Williamson County, our practice is to offer an agreed judgment within certain time limits worked out locally. That agreement is independent of the statutory stuff, which may or may not work to a bondsman's best interest in a particular case.

If the bondsman agrees to the offer, an agreed judgment is signed by both parties and submitted to the court for approval. The signed agreed judgment comes with a check from the bondsman, paying off the judgment.

Done deal.

Now, I suppose a bondsman could ask for his money back if something happens after the judgment is entered. But, personally, I don't see that happening.

It might or might not result in a change in the judgment, at least in that case. But it most certainly would change our practice of agreements with that particular bondsman.

So, he might save a few dollars on that agreement. But save nothing on the next 100 final judgments executed strictly according to the statutes.

In the many, many years we have been operating this way, I have not had a single judgment go south. That's because it works to everyone's advantage in the long run to follow their agreements.

Lynn, if you would like more details and some form offer letters and agreed judgments, contact Jane Starnes at our office -- 512-943-1234. Give her a week to come back from vacation.

Thank you both. It was very helpful and John, I will call Jane when she returns. Our bondsmen have been getting a great deal, but things are about to change. There are several hurdles to overcome, for instance, judges who, without our knowledge, will recall the capias if a bondsman calls in, but I guess there is a learning curve for all of us. Thanks again!!