Texas Bail Bond Remittitur & Special Bill of Review
After a bond is forfeited, a Texas surety can still cut its losses through two remedies: discretionary remittitur under article 22.16(d) before final judgment, and the special bill of review under article 22.17 — an equitable remittitur the surety may seek within two years after the judgment becomes final. Both are explained below for the company that owes the money.
Legally reviewed by Reggie London, TX Bar #24043514.
How does a Texas surety get a forfeited bond reduced or returned?
A forfeiture is not the end of the math. Texas gives a surety two discretionary paths to reduce or recover the forfeited amount: remittitur under article 22.16(d) while the case is open before final judgment, and a special bill of review under article 22.17 for two years after the judgment is final.
Both relief valves come from the Code of Criminal Procedure; this guide is part of our bail bond company defense practice for the surety — the party that owes on the bond.
Is mandatory remittitur still available after Lyles?
No. The mandatory remittitur once written into article 22.16(a) is void. In Lyles v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held those provisions are no longer valid; remittitur is instead discretionary — under 22.16(d) before judgment and under 22.17 after it. Never frame a request as a right.
Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), held that “the mandatory remittitur provisions of 22.16(a) are no longer valid.”1 What survives is a discretionary power under subsection (d), with these consequences:
- Discretionary, not automatic
- No entitlement; the surety asks the court to exercise its discretion on the equities.
- Deferential review
- Reviewed only for abuse of discretion.1
- Pleading has to be right
- A motion demanding “mandatory” remittitur rests on a dead holding. Ask instead for discretion under 22.16(d), or — after judgment — a 22.17 special bill of review.
How does discretionary remittitur under article 22.16(d) work before final judgment?
While the forfeiture case is still open — before the court enters final judgment — article 22.16(d) gives the trial court discretion to remit the bond amount. The surety seeks it inside the live proceeding, on equitable grounds, and the ruling is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.
Timing is everything: once the judgment is final, the only path is the 22.17 special bill of review — the forfeiture suit that precedes it is covered in bail bond forfeiture lawsuit defense.
What is the special bill of review under article 22.17?
Article 22.17 is a separate, post-judgment remedy. Within two years after a final forfeiture judgment, the surety may file a special bill of review asking the trial court for equitable remittitur. The surety bears the burden, the decision is discretionary, and the amount remitted is the forfeiture less the statutory deductions in 22.17(a).
Its statutory features (the merits defenses in surety exoneration and the mechanics in going off the bond often supply the equitable story):
- Two-year window
- File within two years of the final judgment; miss it and the remedy is gone.
- Equitable remittitur, surety’s burden
- The court remits on equitable grounds, and the surety bears the burden.2
- Trial-court discretion
- Discretionary and reviewed only for abuse of discretion.1
- Statutory deductions (22.17(a))
- Any remittitur is the forfeiture less (1) court costs, (2) reasonable county costs to return the principal, and (3) interest from the date of forfeiture.
What equitable factors does the court weigh under McKenna?
In McKenna v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals identified six non-exclusive equitable factors a court weighs on a special bill of review. The surety builds its record around these — especially recovery effort, lack of prejudice, and hardship — because the bill of review is an equity decision.
The six McKenna factors2 are non-exclusive, but in practice these drive the result:
- 1. Willfulness of the nonappearance
- A non-willful absence cuts in the surety’s favor.
- 2. Prejudice to the State or public
- Little or no prejudice supports remittitur.
- 3. The surety’s participation in re-arrest
- Active recovery effort is among the strongest facts a surety can show.
- 4. The State’s costs and inconvenience
- Lower State costs weigh toward a larger remittitur.
- 5. The surety’s compensation for the risk
- The premium the surety charged for assuming the bond.
- 6. Extreme hardship to the surety
- Whether full enforcement would impose extreme hardship.
Article 22.16 vs. article 22.17 — which remedy applies?
The two remedies divide on a single line: the entry of final judgment. Before it, the trial court may grant discretionary remittitur under 22.16(d). After it, the surety has a two-year window to seek equitable remittitur by special bill of review under 22.17, less the statutory deductions.
| Feature | Art. 22.16 — Remittitur After Forfeiture | Art. 22.17 — Special Bill of Review |
|---|---|---|
| When available | Before final judgment, in the live forfeiture case | After final judgment |
| Deadline | Until final judgment is entered | Two years after final judgment |
| Nature of relief | Discretionary remittitur under (d); mandatory remittitur under (a) is void (Lyles) | Equitable remittitur |
| Who bears the burden | Surety must persuade the court | Surety bears the burden (McKenna) |
| Standard of review | Abuse of discretion (Lyles) | Abuse of discretion (Lyles) |
| Amount remitted | As the court determines | Forfeiture less court costs, county return costs, and interest from forfeiture (22.17(a)) |
| Procedural posture | Motion in the forfeiture proceeding | Separate bill-of-review proceeding the surety files |
How to file a special bill of review for remittitur
If a final forfeiture judgment has been entered, the special bill of review under article 22.17 is the surety’s remaining path to equitable remittitur — and it carries a two-year deadline. This is the orderly sequence a Texas surety follows.
- Calendar the two-year deadline. The date the judgment became final starts the two-year clock under article 22.17.
- Assemble the equity record. Gather proof on the McKenna factors2 — recovery and re-arrest efforts, a non-willful nonappearance, the premium charged, and any hardship.
- File the special bill of review. File the verified bill in the court that rendered the final judgment, pleading the equitable grounds and the amounts at issue.
- Carry the surety’s burden. The surety bears the burden;2 the ruling is discretionary, reviewed only for abuse of discretion.1
- Apply the statutory deductions. Any remittitur is the forfeiture less court costs, county costs to return the principal, and interest from forfeiture, per 22.17(a).
This is a general sequence, not legal advice.
Remittitur & bill-of-review FAQ
Common questions from Texas bail bond companies and sureties about reducing or recovering a forfeited bond through remittitur and the special bill of review. These answers are general information, not legal advice for your case.
Can a surety still rely on mandatory remittitur to recover a forfeited bail bond in Texas?
No. The mandatory remittitur once in article 22.16(a) is void. In Lyles v. State the Court of Criminal Appeals held it invalid; remittitur is now discretionary under subsection (d) before final judgment. Ask for the court’s discretion, not a right.
What is the difference between remittitur under article 22.16 and a special bill of review under article 22.17?
Timing. Article 22.16(d) lets the court remit in its discretion before final judgment. Article 22.17 is a separate post-judgment remedy: within two years of the judgment, the surety may file a special bill of review for equitable remittitur.
How long do I have to file a special bill of review after a final forfeiture judgment?
Two years. Under article 22.17 the surety may file the special bill of review within two years after the final judgment. Remittitur is discretionary and the surety bears the burden. Once the window closes, the remedy is gone.
What factors does a court weigh on a special bill of review for remittitur?
In McKenna v. State the Court of Criminal Appeals set out six non-exclusive equity factors: willfulness of the nonappearance; prejudice to the State or public; the surety’s participation in re-arrest; the State’s costs; the surety’s compensation for the risk; and extreme hardship to the surety.
How much can a court actually remit under a special bill of review?
Article 22.17(a) frames it: the court remits the forfeited amount less court costs, the reasonable and necessary county costs to return the principal, and interest from the date of forfeiture — not necessarily a full return.
Is remittitur automatic if my principal is eventually returned to custody?
No. Return of the principal is relevant evidence on prejudice and on the surety’s participation in re-arrest, but neither 22.16(d) nor 22.17 makes remittitur automatic. Both are discretionary; the surety must persuade the court on the equities.
Who bears the burden of proof on a bill of review for remittitur?
The surety. McKenna v. State confirms that on a 22.17 special bill of review the surety bears the burden of showing equitable remittitur should be granted. The work is evidentiary: documenting recovery efforts, the nonappearance, and any hardship.
Can a remittitur ruling be appealed?
Yes, but review is deferential. Under Lyles v. State remittitur is discretionary, and an appellate court reviews only for abuse of discretion — whether the court ignored guiding rules, not whether it should have remitted more.
Talk to a lawyer about reducing or recovering a forfeited bond
If your company is facing a forfeiture, or a final judgment has been entered and the two-year bill-of-review clock is running, tell us where the case stands. Consultations are confidential and there is no charge to evaluate your matter.
Prefer to call?
(972) 370-5060Speak directly with a Co-Founding Partner. Available 24/7 for time-sensitive deadlines.
info@landllawgroup.com
5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101
Frisco, TX 75034
Statutes & cases cited
Statutory citations link to the official Texas Constitution and Statutes site. Case citations are provided in Bluebook form.
Statutes
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.16 (“Remittitur After Forfeiture” — discretionary remittitur under (d) before final judgment; (a) mandatory remittitur held void by Lyles). statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.17 (“Special Bill of Review” — equitable remittitur within two years; under (a), remit less court costs, county return costs, and interest from forfeiture). CR ch. 22.
Cases
- Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (art. 22.16(a) mandatory remittitur void; remittitur discretionary — 22.16(d) pre-judgment, 22.17 post-judgment — reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- McKenna v. State, 247 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (on a 22.17 bill of review the surety bears the burden; six non-exclusive equity factors).
About your attorneys
L and L Law Group, PLLC is a Frisco, Texas criminal-defense firm led by two Co-Founding Partners. Remittitur and bill-of-review practice sits where criminal procedure meets business litigation — the core of what we do for sureties.
Reggie London represents sureties in bond-forfeiture litigation and remittitur and bill-of-review practice across North Texas, and is the author and reviewer of record for this guide.
Njeri London handles criminal-defense and bond-related matters, including the contract and indemnity questions that arise when a forfeiture reaches indemnitors, across the Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant county courts.
Attorney advertising. This page is for general information about Texas bail-bond remittitur and the special bill of review and is not legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is formed by reading it or by sending us a message. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and applicable law of each matter; nothing here is a prediction or assurance of any result. Do not send confidential information before a written engagement is in place. L and L Law Group, PLLC · 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101, Frisco, TX 75034 · (972) 370-5060 · info@landllawgroup.com.