Appeal bonds; adds unlawful detainer cases to list of actions for which an indigent must post bond. (HB99)

Indigents can't post bond, again are our jails empty? Evidence says otherwise.

I know Delegate Loupassi is a rental property owner here in Richmond and has interests at stake but an absolute requirement for posting bond for a category of citizens that would have a hard time doing so is not only sharply overzealous but is also reminiscent of debtors' prisons from Shakespearean England [i.e. in debt? go to prison and try to pay off your debts from there...your release is contingent upon it]. I just can't find anything sensible or moral about this piece. I hope that others will consider opposing its passage.

As an alternative, I would consider an expedited process for eviction and issuance of summons, but, from what I understand, that avenue is already fairly quick. Why put a roadblock of dialog between the lessor and the lessee by such a hardliner proposition as this particular bill?

You must not understand the bill. If someone refuses to leave property and they challenge the landlord's right to the landlord's property, then they have to post bond. In other words, if you want to default on your rent and then claim that the landlord can't evict you (in spite of your default), then you have to post bond. The tenant can still fight the eviction, but they would have to supply a good-faith bond to cover the time that they still occupied the premises.

Makes sense to me. It does NOT take right away from the tenant, if the tenant is right, but does give the landlord some protection against squatters or wrongful possession.

Perhaps I have read it incorrectly. The language precluding exceptions for indigents, trespassers, and defendant parties of unlawful detainer seems to be the core content of the bill. An appeal is guaranteed but not until an additional bond is paid? Why would that preclusion of an exception be necessary for an indigent? Does the bond come in the amount of the owed rent (in the case of a delinquent lessee) and cover that cost or is it in addition to what is already owed in the instance of unlawful detainer?