In re AAAA Bonding Company, LLC, 2016 WL 2621087 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 5, 2016) involved an appeal of a trial court’s decision to suspend a bail agency’s authority to write bail bonds. Mellissa Harrell, the owner of a bail bond agency was elected clerk of the Rutherford County Circuit Court. In light of a statute prohibiting a court clerk from being a bail agent, Ms. Harrell sold the agency to her husband. The agency then filed a petition with the court requesting the change of ownership. Because the husband did not have the required two-years of experiences as an agent, the petition was amended to reflect a sale to another person, who would own the agency in trust for the benefit of the husband. The trial court approved the change of ownership. At the same time, the state moved to suspend the agency’s authority to write bail bonds, noting that the husband is a beneficial owner of the agency, thereby providing an indirect benefit to Ms. Harrell. The trial court did not find proof that the spouses had intermingled funds to demonstrate an indirect benefit. Nevertheless, because the husband would prosper if the agency prospers, there is an indirect benefit simply by virtue of the marital relationship. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The court held that a showing of commingled funds is required to establish an indirect benefit. In the absences of this evidence, the trial court erred in suspending the agency’s authority. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.
