Texas Bail Bond Special Bill of Review
The Two-Year Window to Cut a Forfeiture Judgment
A final judgment of forfeiture is not always the last word. Texas gives a surety two years to file a special bill of review under article 22.17 and ask the court to remit part of the judgment on equitable grounds. It is discretionary, the surety carries the burden, and the clock is unforgiving.
Legally reviewed by Reggie London, TX Bar #24043514.
When a court signs a final judgment of forfeiture, most bondsmen assume the number on the page is fixed forever. It is not. Texas law keeps one door open for two full years: the special bill of review under article 22.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3 It lets a surety go back to the court that entered the judgment and ask, on equitable grounds, that the forfeited amount be reduced. This guide is the post-judgment, practice-level companion to our overview of remittitur and the bill of review and sits under the post-judgment bond forfeiture guide. It covers the deadline that controls everything, the equity record the court actually weighs, the math of what you can save, and the steps to file.
What is a special bill of review?
A special bill of review under article 22.17 is a separate, equitable proceeding in which a surety asks the court that rendered a final forfeiture judgment to remit part of the amount. It is the only remittitur route left once the judgment is final, and the surety bears the burden of persuasion.
An equitable remedy, filed after final judgment
Article 22.16 governs remittitur before a final judgment; article 22.17 is what remains after.3 The special bill of review is an equitable proceeding the surety files in the same court that rendered the judgment, asking it to reduce the forfeited sum. The Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed in McKenna v. State that on a 22.17 bill of review the surety — not the State — bears the burden of showing that remittitur should be granted.5
It does not erase the judgment — it asks the court to reduce it
A bill of review is not an appeal and not a motion for new trial. It does not argue the forfeiture was wrong; it accepts the judgment and asks the court to exercise its equitable discretion to remit. Relief is discretionary, and under Lyles v. State an appellate court reviews the ruling only for abuse of discretion.4
How long do I have to file?
Two years. Article 22.17 lets a surety file the special bill of review within two years after the date the forfeiture judgment became final. The window is firm: once it closes, the equitable-remittitur remedy is gone, no matter how strong the underlying facts are.
The two-year clock and when it starts
The deadline runs from the date the judgment became final, not the date of the original judgment nisi.3 Calendar it the day you receive the signed judgment, and treat it as immovable. Because the special bill of review is the last remittitur path, missing the two-year date forecloses the remedy entirely.
How it interacts with paying and appealing
The bill-of-review window runs independently of the short 31-day payment clock and of any appeal. Preserving a bill of review does not, by itself, stop collection; a surety who needs to halt enforcement while pursuing relief should weigh paying under protest or superseding to appeal. Use our bill-of-review deadline calculator to plot the date.
What equitable factors does the court weigh?
On a special bill of review the court weighs the equities. In McKenna v. State the Court of Criminal Appeals identified six non-exclusive factors. In practice, the surety's recovery effort, the absence of prejudice to the State, and any hardship do the most work.
The six McKenna factors are non-exclusive, and no single one controls — but a well-built record speaks to each.5
- Willfulness of the principal’s failure to appear. A non-willful absence — hospitalization, a missed notice — cuts in the surety’s favor.
- Prejudice to the State or the public. Little or no prejudice from the nonappearance supports a larger remittitur.
- The surety’s participation in re-arrest. Active, documented recovery effort is among the strongest facts a surety can present.
- The State’s costs. The expense the county actually incurred in returning the principal weighs against remittitur.
- The surety’s compensation for the risk. The premium charged for writing the bond is part of the equitable picture.
- Extreme hardship to the surety. Disproportionate financial hardship from paying the full sum favors relief.
Because the bill of review is an equity decision, the work is evidentiary: assemble proof on each factor — especially recovery and re-arrest efforts, the non-willful nature of the absence, and any hardship — before you file.
How much can the court actually remit?
Article 22.17(a) frames the math. The starting point is the penal sum of the bond, which is the hard ceiling and bears no post-judgment interest, and the court may remit that amount less court costs, the county's reasonable costs of returning the principal, and interest from the date of forfeiture.
The 22.17(a) deduction formula
A special bill of review does not produce a refund at large. Article 22.17(a) sets the frame: the court may remit the forfeited amount less (1) the court costs, (2) the reasonable, necessary costs the county incurred to return the principal to custody, and (3) interest accruing from the date of forfeiture.3 Those three deductions are what the county keeps even when the equities favor the surety.
Why the ceiling is the penal sum — and why there is no judgment interest
The starting number is never more than the bond’s penal sum. A forfeiture judgment is penal and, under Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, “must not exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond” and bears no post-judgment interest.6 The only place “interest” enters is as a 22.17(a) deduction running from the date of forfeiture — not as interest on the judgment itself. Estimate your net exposure with our remittitur estimator.
Bill of review vs. discretionary remittitur — which applies?
Timing decides. Before final judgment, a surety seeks discretionary remittitur under article 22.16(d). After final judgment, the special bill of review under article 22.17 is the remedy. Both are discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion; only the procedural posture and deadline differ.
The two remedies are easy to confuse. Article 22.16(d) is a discretionary remittitur the court may grant before it enters final judgment; the mandatory-remittitur subsection, 22.16(a), is void under Lyles v. State.4 Once the judgment is final, that door closes and article 22.17 — the two-year special bill of review — is what remains.3 Our remittitur and bill-of-review overview compares the two side by side; this page focuses on the post-judgment bill-of-review practice.
How to file a special bill of review
If a final judgment of forfeiture has been entered against your company, this is the orderly sequence for pursuing a special bill of review. It is general guidance, not legal advice for your case.
- Calendar the two-year deadline. The clock under article 22.17 runs from the date the judgment became final.3 Diary the date the moment you receive the signed judgment and treat it as immovable.
- Assemble the equity record. Gather proof on the McKenna factors5 — recovery and re-arrest efforts, a non-willful nonappearance, the premium charged, and any hardship.
- Decide whether to stop collection. Because a pending bill of review does not by itself halt enforcement, weigh paying under protest or superseding to appeal if collection is imminent.
- File the verified special bill of review. File in the court that rendered the final judgment, pleading the equitable grounds and the amounts at issue, with the supporting record attached.
- Carry the surety’s burden at the hearing. The surety bears the burden;5 present the equity evidence and the 22.17(a) deduction math so the court can fix the remitted amount.
Plot your deadline and exposure
These free tools show the statutory dates and estimate your net exposure. Each is informational only, not legal advice and not a prediction of any outcome.
Where do you defend bail bond businesses?
We represent sureties, bail bond companies, and bondsmen throughout North Texas, with a base in Frisco and regular practice in the courts and bail bond boards of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties, and surrounding jurisdictions.
A forfeiture judgment is entered and enforced in the court where the criminal case sits, and the related license consequences run through the bail bond board of the county that issued the license. Our firm appears across the DFW metroplex — Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis, Johnson, and Hunt counties — and coordinates with corporate sureties and their producing agents wherever the paper was written. From our office at 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101, Frisco, TX 75034, we handle post-judgment payment and supersedeas decisions, remittitur and bill-of-review practice, forfeiture appeals, and the licensing fallout as one integrated practice.
Special bill of review FAQ
Common questions from Texas sureties and bondsmen weighing a special bill of review after a final judgment of forfeiture. General information, not legal advice for your case.
How long do I have to file a special bill of review in Texas?
Two years. Under article 22.17, a surety may file the special bill of review within two years after the forfeiture judgment becomes final. The window is firm — once it closes, the equitable-remittitur remedy is gone.
Who has the burden of proof on a special bill of review?
The surety. In McKenna v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed that on a 22.17 special bill of review the surety bears the burden of showing that equitable remittitur should be granted. The work is evidentiary.
What can the court deduct from the remittitur?
Article 22.17(a) lets the court remit the forfeited amount less three items: court costs, the county’s reasonable costs of returning the principal, and interest from the date of forfeiture. Those deductions are what the county keeps.
Does a forfeiture judgment earn post-judgment interest while I pursue a bill of review?
No. Under Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, a bond-forfeiture judgment bears no post-judgment interest and cannot exceed the bond’s penal sum. The only “interest” is the 22.17(a) deduction running from the date of forfeiture.
Is a special bill of review the same as an appeal?
No. An appeal challenges whether the judgment was correct; a special bill of review accepts the judgment and asks the court for equitable remittitur. They run on different deadlines and can be pursued for different reasons.
Will filing a bill of review stop the county from collecting?
Not on its own. A pending special bill of review does not automatically halt enforcement. A surety facing imminent collection should weigh paying under protest or superseding to appeal while the bill is pending.
What factors does the court weigh under McKenna?
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.
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 trial court acted without reference to guiding principles.
Do I need a lawyer to file a special bill of review?
It is strongly advisable. The bill of review is an equitable proceeding with a hard two-year deadline, a shifting evidentiary burden, and statutory deductions to argue. A lawyer who handles forfeiture work can build the record and frame the equities.
Talk to a lawyer about a special bill of review
If a final judgment of forfeiture has been entered against your company, the two-year bill-of-review window is already running. Tell us your judgment date and what happened, and we will help you weigh a special bill of review, paying, and an appeal. 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 forfeiture, supersedeas, and appeal 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. 22.14 (“Judgment Final” — final judgment when no sufficient cause shown; collected by execution as in civil actions). statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.16 (“Remittitur After Forfeiture” — discretionary remittitur before final judgment under subsection (d); mandatory 22.16(a) void per Lyles). CR ch. 22.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.17 (“Special Bill of Review” — two-year equitable remittitur; court may remit the forfeited amount less court costs, county return costs, and interest from the date of 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) before judgment, 22.17 after — reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- McKenna v. State, 247 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (on a 22.17 special bill of review the surety bears the burden; six non-exclusive equity factors).
- Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, 797 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, pet. ref’d) (a bond-forfeiture judgment must not exceed the penal sum and bears no post-judgment interest).
About your attorneys
L and L Law Group, PLLC is a Frisco, Texas criminal-defense firm led by two Co-Founding Partners. Post-judgment forfeiture work sits at the intersection of criminal procedure, civil enforcement, and business litigation — the core of what we do for sureties and bondsmen.
Reggie London represents sureties and bondsmen in post-judgment forfeiture matters — payment and supersedeas decisions, remittitur and bill-of-review practice, and forfeiture appeals — across North Texas. He maintains both state and federal practices and is the author and reviewer of record for this guide.
Njeri London handles criminal-defense and bond-related matters for the firm’s clients, including the contract and indemnity questions that surface when a forfeiture judgment reaches indemnitors and collateral-pledgors. She practices throughout the Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant county courts.
Attorney advertising. This page is for general information about Texas post-judgment bail-bond forfeiture law 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.