In State v. Askland, 2009 WL 2366141 (Minn.App. August 4, 2009) the defendant was arrested for felony non-support of a child and a traffic offense. He was released on his own recognizance and failed to appear. After his re-arrest on a bench warrant, the court set bond which was posted by a surety. The defendant again failed to appear, and after an extension of time requested by the surety the bond was forfeited. The court directed that the bond proceeds be paid to the county human services department to give to the mother of the defendant's child. A few days after the forfeiture, the surety recovered the defendant in another state and returned him to custody in Minnesota. The surety sought reinstatement and discharge of the bond. One of the factors considered by the trial court in denying reinstatement was the fact that the money had been disbursed to the child's mother who was unlikely to be able to return it. The surety appealed.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the surety that it was error to pay the bond proceeds to the child's mother. By law forfeited bail money is to be deposited in the state's general fund unless a statute authorizes its use for restitution. Here there was no such statute. It was also error to disburse the money before expiration of the surety's 180 day period to petition for reinstatement of the bond. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed denial of the surety's petition to reinstate and discharge the bond because other factors considered by the trial court included the willfulness of the defendant's failure to appear (which was imputed to the surety) and the surety's knowledge when it wrote the bond that the defendant had previously disregarded his obligations to appear in court. There was also some evidence the surety did not monitor the defendant prior to his failure to appear. The Court thought these other factors were sufficient to support the trial court's exercise of discretion not to reinstate the bond independent of the fact that the money was erroneously paid in child support.