Texas Bail Bond Remittitur Estimator
After a forfeiture judgment, the question for a surety is how much it might ultimately pay. Enter the penal sum and any deductions, check the McKenna equity factors, and this tool returns a net-exposure range and a qualitative read on remittitur. It is an estimate only, never a prediction.
Legally reviewed by Reggie London, TX Bar #24043514.
Remittitur estimator
Enter the bond’s penal sum (required) and any of the three article 22.17(a) deductions. Then check each of the six McKenna equity factors that fits your facts. The tool returns the penal-sum ceiling, a net-exposure range, and a qualitative read — never a percentage or a prediction.
Estimate only. Remittitur is entirely within the court’s discretion and is not guaranteed; the McKenna factors are non-exclusive and are weighed by the court, not scored. This tool is informational only — not legal advice and not a prediction of any outcome. Confirm every figure with counsel.
Once a court has signed a judgment of forfeiture, a bail bond surety wants one number above all others: what it will actually end up paying. The honest answer is not a number — it is a range. The top of the range is fixed by law (the bond’s penal sum), the bottom is set by the article 22.17(a) deductions,1 and where a court lands in between turns on the equities. This estimator plots that range and reads the equities qualitatively. It is the companion tool to our guides on the forfeiture judgment amount and the special bill of review, part of the post-judgment bond forfeiture series.
How this estimator works
The tool fixes the top of your range at the penal sum, subtracts the three article 22.17(a) deductions (court costs, county return costs, and interest from the date of forfeiture) to set the bottom, and reads the six McKenna factors you check as a qualitative gauge of remittitur likelihood, never as a score.
The estimator does three things, each tied to a specific authority. First, it pins the top of the range at the figure you enter as the penal sum, because a judgment on a bond forfeiture cannot exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond.5 Second, it sets the bottom of the range by subtracting the deductions that article 22.17(a) allows a court to keep when it grants an equitable remittitur: court costs, the county’s reasonable costs of returning the principal, and interest accrued from the date of forfeiture.1 If those deductions add up to more than the penal sum, the tool clamps them at the penal sum — a forfeiture judgment cannot fall below zero.
The qualitative read
Third, it counts how many of the six McKenna equity factors you checked and translates that into a plain-language read: four to six favorable factors tend to favor a remittitur, two or three are mixed, and zero or one tend to disfavor it.4 That read is deliberately qualitative. The factors are non-exclusive and a court weighs them — it does not tally them — so the tool never converts your selections into a percentage or a probability.
Why the penal sum is the hard ceiling (and bears no interest)
A bond-forfeiture judgment is penal, not an ordinary civil debt. Under Bailout Bonding Co. v. State it cannot exceed the bond's penal sum and it is error for it to bear post-judgment interest. The penal sum is a fixed ceiling, not a balance that compounds while a surety decides what to do.
The single most important input is the penal sum, because it is also the ceiling. A judgment on a bond forfeiture is penal in nature, and under Bailout Bonding Co. v. State such a judgment “must not exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond.”5 The same case holds that it is error for a judgment on a bond forfeiture “to bear postjudgment interest.”5 Texas courts have applied that rule consistently since Magless v. State in 1929 and through Hubbard v. State, treating the recovery as a penalty that does not bear interest.78 That is why the estimator caps the worst case at the penal sum and never grows it over time.
The one place “interest” appears
Interest enters the picture only in the remittitur context. When a court grants a remittitur, article 22.17(a) lets the county keep, among the deductions, interest accrued from the date of forfeiture — a deduction the county retains, not post-judgment interest running on the judgment.1 That is the figure the “interest” field captures, which is why it is labeled as your own estimate. Our guide to the forfeiture judgment amount walks through the ceiling in full.
The article 22.17(a) deduction formula
When a court grants an equitable remittitur on a special bill of review, article 22.17(a) lets it deduct three things from the penal sum: court costs, the county's reasonable costs of returning the principal to custody, and interest accrued from the date of forfeiture. Those three figures set the bottom of the range.
The bottom of the range comes straight from article 22.17(a). On a special bill of review, a court that grants an equitable remittitur may deduct from the penal sum (1) the costs of court, (2) the reasonable costs incurred by the county in returning the principal to custody, and (3) interest accrued on the bond amount from the date of the forfeiture.1 The estimator adds those three figures and subtracts them from the penal sum to produce the best-case number.
Why these are deductions, not penalties
These amounts are what a court allows the county to keep even when it relieves the surety of most of the judgment. They are not add-ons that increase exposure; they are the floor below the penal-sum ceiling. Because the “county return costs” and “interest” figures depend on your case, the tool treats them as your own estimates and clamps the total so it can never exceed the penal sum. The two-year window and burden for that bill of review are covered in our special bill of review guide.
The six McKenna equity factors (and who bears the burden)
On a special bill of review the surety bears the burden, and McKenna v. State lists six non-exclusive equity factors a court may weigh: the willfulness of the nonappearance, prejudice to the State, the surety's participation in re-arrest, the State's costs, the surety's compensation for the risk, and extreme hardship on the surety.
The middle of the range — whether a court grants any remittitur at all — turns on equity, and the surety carries the load. On an article 22.17 bill of review the surety bears the burden, and McKenna v. State identifies six non-exclusive factors a court may consider: (1) whether the principal’s failure to appear was willful; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the State or the public; (3) the surety’s participation in the principal’s re-arrest; (4) the costs incurred by the State; (5) the surety’s compensation for assuming the risk; and (6) any extreme hardship a full payment would impose on the surety.4
A note on the compensation factor
One factor cuts differently from the rest. A modest premium relative to the risk tends to support a larger remittitur, while a high premium — the surety was well paid for the risk it took — tends to cut against one.4 That is why the checklist phrases the factor as a modest premium: check it only when the compensation was small. Because the list is non-exclusive, a court can weigh facts beyond these six, which is one more reason the estimator’s read stays qualitative.
Why the result is a range, not a number
Remittitur is discretionary. Under Lyles v. State the mandatory remittitur provision is void and a court's remittitur decision is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Because no formula dictates the outcome, an honest estimator gives a defensible range and a qualitative read, never a single predicted figure.
The reason this tool refuses to hand you one number is that the law refuses to. Remittitur is discretionary: in Lyles v. State the Court of Criminal Appeals held the mandatory remittitur provision void and confirmed that a court’s remittitur ruling is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.6 There is no statutory percentage and no formula that dictates how much a court must remit. A surety facing the same facts before two different courts can get two different results.
What a range is good for
A range is honest precisely because it brackets the outcome between the two things the law does fix: the penal-sum ceiling at the top and the article 22.17(a) deductions at the bottom.1 Everything in between is argument, which is where counsel earns its keep. Use the range to scope the stakes and the qualitative read to gauge the strength of your equities — then talk to a lawyer about the actual motion. The estimator is not legal advice and not a prediction of any outcome.
Other post-judgment calculators
Plot the rest of your deadlines and figures with these companion tools. Each shows the statute behind every interval and 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.
Remittitur estimator FAQ
Common questions about estimating a Texas bail bond surety's exposure after a forfeiture judgment and the role of equitable remittitur. General information, not legal advice for your case.
How does the remittitur estimator calculate the range?
It fixes the top of the range at the penal sum you enter, then subtracts the three article 22.17(a) deductions — court costs, the county’s reasonable return costs, and interest from the date of forfeiture — to set the bottom. The best case is the deductions; the worst case is the full penal sum.
Why is the penal sum the maximum I could owe?
Because a bond-forfeiture judgment is penal. Under Bailout Bonding Co. v. State the judgment cannot exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond, and it is error for it to bear post-judgment interest. The penal sum is a fixed ceiling, not a balance that grows.
What are the article 22.17(a) deductions?
When a court grants an equitable remittitur on a special bill of review, article 22.17(a) lets it deduct from the penal sum the costs of court, the county’s reasonable costs of returning the principal to custody, and interest accrued on the bond amount from the date of forfeiture.
Is the interest field the same as post-judgment interest?
No. A forfeiture judgment bears no post-judgment interest. The interest field captures the article 22.17(a) deduction — interest from the date of forfeiture that the county may keep if a remittitur is ordered — not interest running on the judgment. It is labeled as your own estimate.
What are the McKenna factors?
McKenna v. State lists six non-exclusive equity factors a court may weigh on a bill of review: the 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 on the surety. The surety bears the burden.
Does checking four or more factors mean I will get a remittitur?
No. The factor count is a qualitative gauge only, never a probability. The factors are non-exclusive and a court weighs them rather than scoring them, so even strong equities do not guarantee any remittitur. Remittitur is entirely within the court’s discretion.
Why does the estimator give a range instead of one number?
Because remittitur is discretionary. Under Lyles v. State the mandatory remittitur provision is void and the decision is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. No formula dictates the outcome, so an honest tool brackets it between the penal-sum ceiling and the 22.17(a) deductions.
Is this calculator legal advice or a prediction?
No. It is an informational estimator that applies a fixed deduction formula and a qualitative checklist to the figures you enter. It is an estimate only, not legal advice and not a prediction of any outcome. Confirm every figure and your strategy with counsel.
Talk to a lawyer before you decide what to ask the court for
If a forfeiture judgment has been entered against your company, the size of your exposure depends on facts this tool cannot weigh. Tell us your penal sum, your costs, and what happened with the principal, and we will help you build the strongest case for a remittitur on a bill of review. 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. 22.17 (“Special Bill of Review” — within two years after a final forfeiture judgment a surety may seek an equitable remittitur; under art. 22.17(a) a court granting remittitur may deduct from the penal sum the costs of court, the county’s reasonable costs of returning the principal to custody, and interest accrued from the date of forfeiture). statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.16 (“Remittitur After Forfeiture” — a court may, in its discretion, remit a forfeiture before entry of final judgment; the mandatory remittitur provision in art. 22.16(a) was held void in Lyles). statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.
- Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.14 (“Judgment Final” — a final forfeiture judgment is collected by execution as in civil actions, with a separate execution against each party bound). statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.
Cases
- McKenna v. State, 247 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (on an article 22.17 bill of review the surety bears the burden; a court may weigh 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 on the surety).
- Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, 797 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, pet. ref’d) (a bond-forfeiture judgment is penal and must not exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond; it is error for a judgment on a bond forfeiture to bear post-judgment interest).
- Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (the mandatory remittitur provision of art. 22.16(a) is void; remittitur is discretionary and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion).
- Magless v. State, 18 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929) (the sum recovered on a forfeited bail bond is a penalty in the nature of punishment, and such a judgment does not bear interest).
- Hubbard v. State, 814 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. App. 1991) (pre- and post-judgment interest are not recoverable in bond-forfeiture proceedings, which are criminal in nature, following Bailout).
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.