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

Introduced By

Del. Manoli Loupassi (R-Richmond)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Appeal bonds; unlawful detainer; indigents. Adds unlawful detainer cases to the list of actions for which an indigent must post an appeal bond. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/05/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101216D
01/05/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/13/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
01/15/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
01/25/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (10-Y 0-N)
01/27/2010Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/29/2010Read first time
02/01/2010Read second time
02/01/2010Committee amendments agreed to
02/01/2010Engrossed by House as amended HB99E
02/01/2010Printed as engrossed 10101216D-E
02/02/2010Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N)
02/02/2010VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/03/2010Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N)
02/03/2010Constitutional reading dispensed
02/03/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/17/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
03/01/2010Reported from Courts of Justice (13-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2010Read third time
03/03/2010Passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2010Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB99ER)
03/11/2010Signed by Speaker
03/13/2010Signed by President
04/08/2010G Approved by Governor-Chapter 267 (effective 7/1/10)
04/08/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0267)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 1 minute.


Jack F., tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

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

Rob Smith writes:

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.

Rob Smith writes:

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?

Marc writes:

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.

Rob Smith writes:

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?