Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #55

[Jmoose]

I am reminded that FD never really spent a lot of time alone in that house. He installed Michelle in the house pretty much the day JFD moved out. Mich had already been living closeby with her daughter in one of his other houses and working for his company.
After arraignment and bail - He seemed to have Rena the sister et al there at the house on and off for extended stays after he was forbidden to see Michelle iirc. Anna Curry(former coworker iirc from his banking days) was also a live in after Michelle - altho I am not clear on when she actually arrived there -
He used women to suit his emotional/financial/sexual etc needs in any way he could and then moved on to the next. Not very original of him but despicable none the less.
I don't recall if Anna Curry ever got her deposit back on the $6m bond for Fotis - but if I were her, I would in hindsight be happy that the money was all I lost ALL IMO

Woman who paid deposit for Fotis Dulos’ $6M bond wants money back

Anna Curry alleges that she is owed the $148,000 deposit she gave 24/7 Bail Bonds, an...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

She did not, unless something changed. I think I recall that she was suing to get it back, but she put the money up to guarantee that he would be showing up to court, and….he didn’t. I guess she forgot she signed a contract.

 

[Seattle1]

I don't recall if Anna Curry ever got her deposit back on the $6m bond for Fotis - but if I were her, I would in hindsight be happy that the money was all I lost ALL IMO

It wasn't a deposit but the bond premium on $6M which is non-refundable. I recall AC paid about $150K-- and was also obligated to make monthly installment payments for 15 months.

There are two parts to a surety bond -- the bond premium and the collateral for the $6M. The premium is the non-refundable fee paid to the underwriter who goes before the Court and guarantees the defendant is good for the $6M that the Court required as a condition to release the accused from jail.

The emergency hearing was called after the Court and underwriter received a tip suggesting FD's collateral was impaired-- causing the underwriter to immediately put the Court on notice that the bond was being revoked. FD had long known he lied on the bond application and he was going straight to jail at the end of the hearing.

AC asking for her money back is the equivalent of paying premiums on an auto policy and the following year, requesting the premiums refunded because the policy holder was accident free. It doesn't work that way! Nor does the Court prorate a defendant's bail!

Fotis used AC just as he did his wife and her family. MOO

 

[LosAngeles]

She did not, unless something changed. I think I recall that she was suing to get it back, but she put the money up to guarantee that he would be showing up to court, and….he didn’t. I guess she forgot she signed a contract.

05/31/2023

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that MICHELLE TROCONIS, with docket number FST CR190148553T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 06/22/2023. This will take place in Stamford-Norwalk JD Courthouse located at the following address: 123 Hoyt Street, Stamford, CT.

Please be aware that there is often more than one case scheduled for a particular date in this court. Please visit www.jud.ct.gov to check for any updates that may be available on this case.

For more information, contact the Office of Victim Services at 1-800-822-8428. For updates about this case or for driving directions to the courthouse, you can visit www.jud.ct.gov.

 

[Seattle1]

She did not, unless something changed. I think I recall that she was suing to get it back, but she put the money up to guarantee that he would be showing up to court, and….he didn’t. I guess she forgot she signed a contract.

I believe the suit by AC was likely dismissed as she did not have a claim for relief per the attorney for the Bondsman/Surety, and I agree.

Also, referring to the premium as a "deposit" was by AC and her attorney, not the author of this article. Of course, the use of "deposit" implies held monies (to be returned).

In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Attorney A. Ryan McGuigan, representing the bail bond company, contends his client fulfilled its obligations by getting Fotis Dulos released from custody. The owner of the company went to his home on Jan. 28 when Fotis Dulos didn’t show up in court and found police attempting to resuscitate him, court filings said.

“We moved to dismiss the claim because she doesn’t have one,” McGuigan said Wednesday. “The bond was never declared bad. Based on the facts and circumstances agreed upon, she doesn’t have a claim for relief.”

5/12/21 -- Woman who paid deposit for Fotis Dulos’ $6M bond wants money back.

 

[waldojabba]

I believe the suit by AC was likely dismissed as she did not have a claim for relief per the attorney for the Bondsman/Surety, and I agree.

Also, referring to the premium as a "deposit" was by AC and her attorney, not the author of this article. Of course, the use of "deposit" implies held monies (to be returned).

In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Attorney A. Ryan McGuigan, representing the bail bond company, contends his client fulfilled its obligations by getting Fotis Dulos released from custody. The owner of the company went to his home on Jan. 28 when Fotis Dulos didn’t show up in court and found police attempting to resuscitate him, court filings said.

“We moved to dismiss the claim because she doesn’t have one,” McGuigan said Wednesday. “The bond was never declared bad. Based on the facts and circumstances agreed upon, she doesn’t have a claim for relief.”

5/12/21 -- Woman who paid deposit for Fotis Dulos’ $6M bond wants money back

Thanks @Seattle1. From the info below it looks like the suit was filed on feb 23rd 2021 and still active, at least as per this justia.com info, up until at least June 2nd last year. NOt sure how accurate Justia is ? Then they say to look on Pacer the paid site. I don't know if there is a public database for the US Distirct Court/CT District Court where I can find the status. It does not really impact the case at all but just curious. From what you all say it sounds pretty black and white like it would have been dismissed out of hand. Wondering if there is some type of twist to it or CT just being CT and letting things drag on. Just IMO

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al

Contract: Other case filed on February 23, 2021 in the Connecticut District Court

dockets.justia.com

 

[Jmoose]

Thanks @Seattle1. From the info below it looks like the suit was filed on feb 23rd 2021 and still active, at least as per this justia.com info, up until at least June 2nd last year. NOt sure how accurate Justia is ? Then they say to look on Pacer the paid site. I don't know if there is a public database for the US Distirct Court/CT District Court where I can find the status. It does not really impact the case at all but just curious. From what you all say it sounds pretty black and white like it would have been dismissed out of hand. Wondering if there is some type of twist to it or CT just being CT and letting things drag on. Just IMO

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al

Contract: Other case filed on February 23, 2021 in the Connecticut District Court

dockets.justia.com

I don’t think it’s still active. I think her suit got turned away last year; she isn’t getting that money back. Looks like fD screwed all of these women, both literally, AND financially-and in MT’s case, criminally.

 

[waldojabba]

I don’t think it’s still active. I think her suit got turned away last year; she isn’t getting that money back. Looks like fD screwed all of these women, both literally, AND financially-and in MT’s case, criminally.

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al (3:21-cv-00221), Connecticut District Court

See above - this is all I can see without a subscription. If accurate ? it looks like it is still active with the last entry showing as May 22 2023. Totally agree FD was any and all women's worst nightmare. IMO

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks @Seattle1. From the info below it looks like the suit was filed on feb 23rd 2021 and still active, at least as per this justia.com info, up until at least June 2nd last year. NOt sure how accurate Justia is ? Then they say to look on Pacer the paid site. I don't know if there is a public database for the US Distirct Court/CT District Court where I can find the status. It does not really impact the case at all but just curious. From what you all say it sounds pretty black and white like it would have been dismissed out of hand. Wondering if there is some type of twist to it or CT just being CT and letting things drag on. Just IMO

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al

Contract: Other case filed on February 23, 2021 in the Connecticut District Court

dockets.justia.com

Thanks @waldojabba. I'm wondering if there might be two lawsuits by AC. I thought the $150K premium I previously posted about was Curry v 24/7 Bail Bonds, LLC -- an agent to Palmetto. Media first reported about it on May 12, 2021.

I know AC also signed a promissory note with Palmetto Surety for $3M-- it was crazy how she exposed herself financially -- going all out for FD. She likely had fees involved with Palmetto Surety as well that she wants back -- knowing she has no other recourse since the true debtor was the Estate of FD and he died insolvent.

I can look the claim up on Pacer but have to wait until June or new billing cycle.

ETA: Actually -- there are 4 defendants including 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Palmetto Surety, and two individuals.

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al (3:21-cv-00221), Connecticut District Court

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al (3:21-cv-00221), Connecticut District Court, Filed: 02/23/2021

www.pacermonitor.com

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks @Seattle1. From the info below it looks like the suit was filed on feb 23rd 2021 and still active, at least as per this justia.com info, up until at least June 2nd last year. NOt sure how accurate Justia is ? Then they say to look on Pacer the paid site. I don't know if there is a public database for the US Distirct Court/CT District Court where I can find the status. It does not really impact the case at all but just curious. From what you all say it sounds pretty black and white like it would have been dismissed out of hand. Wondering if there is some type of twist to it or CT just being CT and letting things drag on. Just IMO

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al

Contract: Other case filed on February 23, 2021 in the Connecticut District Court

dockets.justia.com

OK, I searched the case number from Justia docket link [3:20-21-00221] and this is not the Curry case! I'm curious but not so curious to pay for the info!

Search Clues
Mobile Query

Case Number

Select a case: 3:20-cr-00021-KAD USA v. Huitzil (closed 08/31/2020) 3:20-cv-00021-KAD USA v. $2,730.00 Dollars in United States Currency et al (closed 02/23/2021) 3:20-mc-00021-WIG In Re: Citibank Checking Account Number 155 712 5710 3:20-mj-00021-WIG USA v. Katz (closed 01/14/2020) 3:20-po-00021-RAR USA vs Cassesse (closed 02/20/2020)

 

[waldojabba]

OK, I searched the case number from Justia docket link [3:20-21-00221] and this is not the Curry case! I'm curious but not so curious to pay for the info!

Search Clues
Mobile Query

Case Number

Select a case: 3:20-cr-00021-KAD USA v. Huitzil (closed 08/31/2020) 3:20-cv-00021-KAD USA v. $2,730.00 Dollars in United States Currency et al (closed 02/23/2021) 3:20-mc-00021-WIG In Re: Citibank Checking Account Number 155 712 5710 3:20-mj-00021-WIG USA v. Katz (closed 01/14/2020) 3:20-po-00021-RAR USA vs Cassesse (closed 02/20/2020)

I have the Curry v Palmetto et al case number as being 3:21-cv-00221
Above is showing 3:20... cases ?
Am I misreading your post?
Thanks for taking the time on this - I appreciate it
imo

 

[Seattle1]

I have the Curry v Palmetto et al case number as being 3:21-cv-00221
Above is showing 3:20... cases ?
Am I misreading your post?
Thanks for taking the time on this - I appreciate it
imo

No, I don't think you are misreading. Pacer has an odd input method where the case number you search by is truncated in the results. In other words, I need 4 digits following the colon as indicated below:

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al

Plaintiff:​	Anna K Curry
Defendant:​	William Sobota, Jerry Cao, 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC and Palmetto Surety Corporation
Case Number:​	3:2021cv00221
Filed:​	February 23, 2021
Court:​	US District Court for the District of Connecticut

 

[Seattle1]

I think I understand why the suit by AC is still in litigation. The premium monies by AC is not refundable UNLESS the CT Dept of Insurance voids the bond which I'm sure AC is hoping will be the case or she might also be on the hook for the remaining 15 installment payments.

Seems the party that dropped the hint about Fd's collateral being impaired was identified and her inquiry also put heat on Palmetto Surety so they are also being investigated for writing the bond.

If Palmetto is cited for failing at normal due diligence, that could possibly make the bond void and AC would probably get her premium refunded.

Hard to tell what's happened with the Insurance Commission investigation. Although we know that Fd was fraudulent with his application, AC may be arguing that Palmetto should have caught the fraud before signing the bond and assert it was bad faith for the Bondsman and Surety to accept her premiums on behalf of Fd's release.

In other words, AC has much to lose so no doubt she needs to be creative in her defense.

Email shows prosecutor notified of bond concerns hours after Fotis Dulos release

The Connecticut and South Carolina departments of insurance are investigating the...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

A Connecticut bondwoman raised concerns with the lead prosecutor in the Fotis Dulos murder case within hours of the Farmington man’s Jan. 9 release on a $6 million bond.

[..]

She contends there should have been a closer examination of the property values that Dulos provided as collateral before the bond was signed.

The $147,000 Curry already paid is not refundable unless the Connecticut or South Carolina departments of insurance void the bond, Casey said. Curry could also be on the hook for the remaining $272,000 she was supposed to pay in installments, Casey said.

Curry could not be reached for comment. Dulos’ attorney Norm Pattis did not respond to requests on Friday for comment about the bond.

 

[waldojabba]

I think I understand why the suit by AC is still in litigation. The premium monies by AC is not refundable UNLESS the CT Dept of Insurance voids the bond which I'm sure AC is hoping will be the case or she might also be on the hook for the remaining 15 installment payments.

Seems the party that dropped the hint about Fd's collateral being impaired was identified and her inquiry also put heat on Palmetto Surety so they are also being investigated for writing the bond.

If Palmetto is cited for failing at normal due diligence, that could possibly make the bond void and AC would probably get her premium refunded.

Hard to tell what's happened with the Insurance Commission investigation. Although we know that Fd was fraudulent with his application, AC may be arguing that Palmetto should have caught the fraud before signing the bond and assert it was bad faith for the Bondsman and Surety to accept her premiums on behalf of Fd's release.

In other words, AC has much to lose so no doubt she needs to be creative in her defense.

Email shows prosecutor notified of bond concerns hours after Fotis Dulos release

The Connecticut and South Carolina departments of insurance are investigating the...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

A Connecticut bondwoman raised concerns with the lead prosecutor in the Fotis Dulos murder case within hours of the Farmington man’s Jan. 9 release on a $6 million bond.

[..]

She contends there should have been a closer examination of the property values that Dulos provided as collateral before the bond was signed.

The $147,000 Curry already paid is not refundable unless the Connecticut or South Carolina departments of insurance void the bond, Casey said. Curry could also be on the hook for the remaining $272,000 she was supposed to pay in installments, Casey said.

Curry could not be reached for comment. Dulos’ attorney Norm Pattis did not respond to requests on Friday for comment about the bond.

Thanks so much for looking into this and the explanations

 

[Seattle1]

It's official, the claim by AC and counterclaim by defendants is ongoing.

Other than the docket, there's not much to see on this matter because the documents are redacted or otherwise sealed by Court Order filed March 25, 2022.

The defense's motion to Dismiss AC's complaint filed April 16, 2021 was noted on the docket by the Court with an Order "Taken under advisement," on October 14, 2021.

But on December 21, 2021-- the pending motion to Dismiss was denied by the Court without prejudice (which means it can be filed again).

IMO, the Court likely ruled in this manner because of the CT Insurance Investigation of defendant Palmetto Surety, resultant from FD's fraudulent bond application.

Following the denial, the defense filed a counterclaim against AC in January 2022.

Fast forward to May 22, 2023 and matter is close to either Summary Judgement or Trial briefs will be due in July:

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motions due by 7/6/2023. Trial Brief due by 7/6/2023 if no motion for summary judgment is filed, or thirty days after a ruling on the last motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/22/2023. (Hurley, S.)

December 21, 2021​

Filing 48 CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM and ORDER: I deny Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 18, without prejudice. I order the parties to submit a proposed revised case management plan and the Defendants to contact my clerk with their position regarding contacting the Connecticut Insurance Department by December 31, 2021. I dismiss the Plaintiff's pending motion to extend the time to file supplemental briefing relating to the motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 42, as moot. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/21/2021. (Hurley, S.)​

March 25, 2022​

Filing 63 ORDER: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), "[t]he court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction." Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 57(b)(1)(A), any order sealing a judicial document requires "particularized findings on the record that closure is essential to preserve compelling interests, and that the closure is narrowly tailored to serve those interests." The party moving to seal must demonstrate that closure is "essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp., 411 F. Supp. 3d 216, 232 (D. Conn. 2019). In this case, Defendants have called Chambers and requested that Document 58-1 be sealed because it contains personally identifying information regarding a party to this proceeding. In the interest of that party's privacy, the Clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Document 58-1, which will remain sealed until further order of the Court. Defendants shall docket a redacted copy of the filing. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/25/2022. (Hurley, S.)​

Docket 2021-2022
Docket 2023

 

[Jmoose]

It's official, the claim by AC and counterclaim by defendants is ongoing.

Other than the docket, there's not much to see on this matter because the documents are redacted or otherwise sealed by Court Order filed March 25, 2022.

The defense's motion to Dismiss AC's complaint filed April 16, 2021 was noted on the docket by the Court with an Order "Taken under advisement," on October 14, 2021.

But on December 21, 2021-- the pending motion to Dismiss was denied by the Court without prejudice (which means it can be filed again).

IMO, the Court likely ruled in this manner because of the CT Insurance Investigation of defendant Palmetto Surety, resultant from FD's fraudulent bond application.

Following the denial, the defense filed a counterclaim against AC in January 2022.

Fast forward to May 22, 2023 and matter is close to either Summary Judgement or Trial briefs will be due in July:

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motions due by 7/6/2023. Trial Brief due by 7/6/2023 if no motion for summary judgment is filed, or thirty days after a ruling on the last motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/22/2023. (Hurley, S.)

December 21, 2021​

Filing 48 CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM and ORDER: I deny Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 18, without prejudice. I order the parties to submit a proposed revised case management plan and the Defendants to contact my clerk with their position regarding contacting the Connecticut Insurance Department by December 31, 2021. I dismiss the Plaintiff's pending motion to extend the time to file supplemental briefing relating to the motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 42, as moot. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/21/2021. (Hurley, S.)​

March 25, 2022​

Filing 63 ORDER: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), "[t]he court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction." Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 57(b)(1)(A), any order sealing a judicial document requires "particularized findings on the record that closure is essential to preserve compelling interests, and that the closure is narrowly tailored to serve those interests." The party moving to seal must demonstrate that closure is "essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp., 411 F. Supp. 3d 216, 232 (D. Conn. 2019). In this case, Defendants have called Chambers and requested that Document 58-1 be sealed because it contains personally identifying information regarding a party to this proceeding. In the interest of that party's privacy, the Clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Document 58-1, which will remain sealed until further order of the Court. Defendants shall docket a redacted copy of the filing. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/25/2022. (Hurley, S.)​

Docket 2021-2022
Docket 2023

Not too surprising, is it? She put up a lot of money for him. I thought at one point that she knew he was going to commit suicide that day, but I can’t imagine that she would knowingly agree to lose such a large amount of money. Unless she thought she had a pretty good chance to claw it back, afterward. I wonder what her chances are, to get at least some of it back. Sort of seems like everyone but GF and the children might end up being made at least partly whole by the end of this.

 

[sleuth66]

You have a very good point…why did they BOTH have to be in Farmington with FD’s phone, if they actually were. There was no good reason for KM to be there at all. But-we know that Jennifer’s body was in both in her suburban, and PG’s truck, because of the blood evidence. What was KM driving at the time? Or to what vehicle did he have access? I don’t think KM was at Waveny, because if he was, then there wouldn’t have been blood in PG’s truck. I wonder if he was somewhere else, and fD dropped off Jennifer’s remains somewhere else to KM, and we have no idea where he was all day that Friday because he claimed he broke his phone and got rid of it. I don’t know anything about the triangulation process with regard to cell phones-could the police have been able to discover where KM was that day, or to whom he spoke, even without the phone? I think they used Whatsapp to communicate, and I don’t think they can unravel that.

With regards to KM, there is another entity potentially involved, FS, who was in close contact with KM around the time of the murder. KM may have been where he said he was (at the FORE office) but he likely has more connections that we know. Whether he gives them up or not, or whether the prosecution has made any headway there, is an open question (each year at the anniversary, family spokesperson CL always reminds "this is an open and ongoing investigation" so one can only hope, although one would expect additional charges filed if they had anything definitive).

Attorney: Police conduct ‘strip search’ of client’s phone in Jennifer Dulos case

Investigators obtained a search warrant to examine Michelle Troconis’ phone for all...

www.ctinsider.com

 

[Seattle1]

Not too surprising, is it? She put up a lot of money for him. I thought at one point that she knew he was going to commit suicide that day, but I can’t imagine that she would knowingly agree to lose such a large amount of money. Unless she thought she had a pretty good chance to claw it back, afterward. I wonder what her chances are, to get at least some of it back. Sort of seems like everyone but GF and the children might end up being made at least partly whole by the end of this.

The case is still pending today because both mediation and settlement conferences during 2022 failed. And after AC's attorney withdrew from the case late last year, there was another delay when AC needed additional time to hire a new attorney.

I'm not sure what will happen at trial if it gets that far. While it's true that Palmetto exceeded the risk criteria allowed pursuant to CT Insurance regulations, and upon that knowledge, acted by motioning the Court of their intent to pull the bond, it was not without the deceit of FD (and probably AC) when a fraudulent bond application was made.

IMO, something was always off to me about the timing of AC's complaint filed a year after FD's suicide, especially if first alleging she just wanted the $148K deposit refunded (when AC was fully aware the total non-refundable bond premium was $420K and balance remaining).

It doesn't follow that FD would be released from jail for any length of time to keep AC company in the Farmington mansion to play "happy couple" at absolutely no cost except for the pledge of super leveraged collateral-- in foreclosure!....

I just can't with these people that enabled FD as if he was the anointed. This when a mother of 5 babies was missing and most likely murdered at the hand of FD.

Personally, I think AC filed the initial suit in 2021 because she learned about the Investigation of Palmetto by CT Insurance Commission and she was probably concerned Palmetto was going to implicate her in the fraudulent bond application by FD, and sue her for the balance of the bond premium contract.

Also, AC can't ignore that when negotiating with Palmetto to get FD out of jail, she also signed a $3M Promissory Note and Financial Statement & Indemnity Agreement to serve as a Co-Indemnitor if the bond was forfeited (i.e., should FD fail to appear) before Palmetto would agree to post the bond.

AC hired a new lawyer in March 2023 who amended AC's initial, 2021 complaint and now alleges Palmetto forged AC's signature on the bond premium contract! MOO

 

[Seattle1]

U.S. District Court
District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:21-cv-00221-SRU​

Curry v. Palmetto Surety Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Stefan R. Underhill Referred to: Judge Thomas O. Farrish (Settlement) Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

Date Filed: 02/23/2021 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity

Plaintiff
Anna K Curry	represented by​	Jonathan J. Einhorn

Date Filed	#	Docket Text
02/23/2021	1​	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-6399310.), filed by Anna K Curry.(Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 02/23/2021)
[..]	​
01/03/2022	50​	ORDER re 49 Proposed Order filed by Anna K Curry: I approve the parties' proposed revised case management plan, Doc. No. 49, and adopt the deadlines proposed therein. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/3/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 01/03/2022)
01/03/2022	51​	Reset Deadlines: Answer deadline updated for 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC to 2/10/2022; Jerry Cao to 2/10/2022; Palmetto Surety Corporation to 2/10/2022; William Sobota to 2/10/2022. Discovery due by 5/2/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 6/15/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 01/03/2022)
01/04/2022	​	Answer deadline updated for 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC to 1/10/2022; Jerry Cao to 1/10/2022; Palmetto Surety Corporation to 1/10/2022; William Sobota to 1/10/2022. This entry corrects the scrivener's error in Doc. No. 51, reconciling the Answer deadline on the docket with the deadline set forth in Doc. No. 49, as approved by Doc. No. 50. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 01/04/2022)
01/10/2022	52​	ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Affirmative Defenses , COUNTERCLAIM against Anna K Curry by William Sobota, 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Palmetto Surety Corporation, Jerry Cao.(Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 01/10/2022)
01/25/2022	53​	RESPONSE re 52 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim with Affirmative Defenses by Anna K Curry. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 01/25/2022)
03/15/2022	54​	MOTION for Extension of Time until March 30, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness 49 Proposed Order by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 03/15/2022)
03/16/2022	55​	MOTION to Withdraw Motion for Extension of Time by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 03/16/2022)
03/18/2022	56​	ORDER granting 55 Motion to Withdraw and, in light of the withdrawal, denying as moot 54 Motion for Extension of Time Until March 30, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/18/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 03/18/2022)
03/23/2022	57​	MOTION for Attorney(s) Barrett R. Brewer to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-6875128) by Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit A - Affidavit of Atty. Barrett Brewer)(Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2022)
03/24/2022	58​	Second MOTION for Extension of Time until March 24, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Expert Disclosure)(Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 03/24/2022)
03/24/2022	59​	ORDER granting 57 Motion for Attorney Barrett R. Brewer to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Certificate of Good Standing due by 5/23/2022. Signed by Clerk on 3/24/2022. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 03/24/2022)
03/24/2022	60​	OBJECTION re 57 MOTION for Attorney(s) Barrett R. Brewer to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-6875128) filed by Anna K Curry. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 03/24/2022)
03/24/2022	61​	OBJECTION re 58 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until March 24, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness filed by Anna K Curry. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 03/24/2022)
03/24/2022	62​	REPLY to Response to 58 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until March 24, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness filed by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 03/24/2022)
03/25/2022	63​	ORDER: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), "[t]he court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction." Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 57(b)(1)(A), any order sealing a judicial document requires "particularized findings on the record that closure is essential to preserve compelling interests, and that the closure is narrowly tailored to serve those interests." The party moving to seal must demonstrate that closure is "essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp., 411 F. Supp. 3d 216, 232 (D. Conn. 2019). In this case, Defendants have called Chambers and requested that Document 58-1 be sealed because it contains personally identifying information regarding a party to this proceeding. In the interest of that party's privacy, the Clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Document 58-1, which will remain sealed until further order of the Court. Defendants shall docket a redacted copy of the filing. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/25/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022	64​	NOTICE of Appearance by Barrett Brewer on behalf of Palmetto Surety Corporation (Brewer, Barrett) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022	65​	EXHIBIT 1 by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation re 58 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until March 24, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 03/28/2022)
03/28/2022	66​	ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 58 Motion for Extension of Time until March 24, 2022 to Disclose Expert Witness. The objections stated in Doc. No. 61 are overruled. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/28/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 03/28/2022)
04/28/2022	67​	NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Status Conference set for 5/4/2022 10:00 AM before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. The call-in for the conference is 888.636.3807; when prompted for the access code, dial 650 8043 followed by #. (If asked whether to join the conference as the host, bypass that option by dialing #.) (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 04/28/2022)
05/02/2022	68​	CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 57 MOTION for Attorney(s) Barrett R. Brewer to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-6875128) by Palmetto Surety Corporation. (Brewer, Barrett) (Entered: 05/02/2022)
05/02/2022	69​	First MOTION to Amend/Correct 52 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim on Consent by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation, William Sobota.Responses due by 5/23/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Amended Counterclaim)(Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 05/02/2022)
05/03/2022	​	NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/4/2022 10:00 AM before Judge Stefan R. Underhill has been cancelled. The Court will reschedule the call for a mutually convenient date and time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/3/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/03/2022)
05/06/2022	70​	ORDER granting 69 Motion to Amend. Defendants shall file the amended Answer with counterclaims as a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/6/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/06/2022)
05/06/2022	71​	NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. RESET FROM 5/4/2022. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/9/2022 02:00 PM before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. The call-in for the conference is 888.636.3807; when prompted for the access code, dial 650 8043 followed by #. (If asked whether to join the conference as the host, bypass that option by dialing #.) (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/06/2022)
05/09/2022	72​	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Status Conference held on 5/9/2022. Total Time: 0 hours and 16 minutes. (Court Reporter Melissa Cianciullo.) (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/09/2022)
05/10/2022	73​	MEMORANDUM of Status Conference and ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/10/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/10/2022)
05/10/2022	​	Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 7/1/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 8/1/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/10/2022)
05/17/2022	74​	MOTION for Protective Order as Modified by Anna K Curry.Responses due by 6/7/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed Modified Scheduling Order))(Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 05/17/2022)
06/01/2022	75​	ORDER granting 74 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/1/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 06/01/2022)
06/02/2022	76​	MOTION to Seal Expert Report, Docket Entry 65 by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation, William Sobota. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 06/02/2022)
06/06/2022	77​	ORDER granting 76 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall seal Document Number 65. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/6/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 06/06/2022)
07/28/2022	78​	MOTION for to Modify Scheduling Order Order by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Jerry Cao, Palmetto Surety Corporation, William Sobota. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 07/28/2022)
08/02/2022	79​	MOTION for Stephen J. Curley to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff by Stephen J. Curley. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 08/02/2022)
08/03/2022	80​	OBJECTION re 78 MOTION for to Modify Scheduling Order Order filed by Anna K Curry. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 08/03/2022)
08/08/2022	81​	NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/17/2022 10:00 AM before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. The call-in for the conference is 888.636.3807; when prompted for the access code, dial 650 8043 followed by #. (If asked whether to join the conference as the host, bypass that option by dialing #.) (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 08/08/2022)
08/16/2022	82​	REPLY to Response to 78 MOTION for to Modify Scheduling Order Order filed by Palmetto Surety Corporation, William Sobota. (Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 08/16/2022)
08/16/2022	101​	OBJECTION re 79 MOTION for Stephen J. Curley to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff filed by Anna K Curry. Document originally submitted to Court via email to chambers. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
08/17/2022	83​	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Telephonic Status Conference/EX PARTE Motion Hearing held on 8/17/2022. 78 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order is GRANTED. An amended scheduling order will follow. 79 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED without prejudice. Total Time: 0 hours and 23 minutes. (Court Reporter Melissa Cianciullo.) (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 08/17/2022)
08/24/2022	84​	AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/1/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 10/1/2022. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/24/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 08/24/2022)
08/26/2022	85​	ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/26/22.(Barry, Donna) (Entered: 08/29/2022)
08/30/2022	86​	ORDER: Telephonic pre-settlement conference set for September 8, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. before Judge Thomas O. Farrish. Please call in to the Court's conference call line at 1-888-557-8511 and enter the pass code of 4478772# when prompted. A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. Because the parties will likely be ordered to attend the conference, either in-person or via videoconference, counsel are instructed to obtain their client's schedules over the next ninety days and have them available during the pre-conference. Counsel should also have their own calendars available to aid in scheduling. During the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what, if any, information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference to maximize its chances of success. If either counsel has a firm, unavoidable conflict at the appointed date and time, e.g., a previously-scheduled appearance in another court, s/he should not file a motion for continuance on the docket but rather should call Chambers at 860-240-3605 as soon as possible with opposing counsel on the line to work out an alternate day and time for the pre-conference with Judge Farrish's law clerk. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/30/22.(Wood, R.) (Entered: 08/30/2022)
08/31/2022	87​	Consent MOTION to Stay Proceedings in Favor of Mediation by Anna K Curry.Responses due by 9/21/2022 (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 08/31/2022)
09/06/2022	88​	ORDER granting 87 Motion to Stay pending mediation. This case will be stayed for ninety days or until its resolution, whichever occurs earlier. The parties shall promptly notify the Court of any resolution. If the matter does not resolve by December 1, 2022, then by December 15, 2022 the parties shall (1) file a status report and (2) either move to extend the stay or file a revised Rule 26(f) Report. So ordered. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/6/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 09/06/2022)
09/06/2022	​	Set Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/15/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 09/06/2022)
09/08/2022	89​	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas O. Farrish: Telephonic Pre-Settlement Conference held on 9/8/2022. Time 15 minutes (Wood, R.) (Entered: 09/08/2022)
09/08/2022	90​	ORDER: A settlement conference is scheduled for October 24, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. with Judge Farrish. Please see attached order for important instructions. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 9/8/22.(Wood, R.) (Entered: 09/08/2022)
10/07/2022	102​	OBJECTION re 91 Second MOTION for Stephen J. Curley to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Anna K Curry. Document originally submitted to Court via email to chambers. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
10/13/2022	91​	Second MOTION for Stephen J. Curley to Withdraw as Attorney by Stephen J. Curley. (Curley, Stephen) (Entered: 10/13/2022)
10/14/2022	92​	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas O. Farrish: Telephonic Pre-Settlement Conference held on 10/14/2022. Time 15 minutes (Wood, R.) (Entered: 10/17/2022)
10/17/2022	93​	ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Judge Farrish held a call with counsel on October 14, 2022 to discuss the impact of the motion at ECF No. 91 on the settlement conference scheduled for October 24, 2022. As discussed, the settlement conference is converted into an ex parte Zoom mediation session with the plaintiff and Attorney Curley. All parties are excused from the demand, offer, and mediation statement requirements of the settlement conference order at ECF No. 90, and the defendants and their counsel are excused from attending on October 24, 2022. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 10/14/22.(Wood, R.) (Entered: 10/17/2022)
11/15/2022	95​	ORDER: A settlement conference is scheduled for November 21, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. with Judge Farrish. The zoom information will be emailed to counsel. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 11/15/22.(Wood, R.) (Entered: 11/15/2022)
11/21/2022	97​	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas O. Farrish: Settlement Conference held on 11/21/2022. The case did not settle.Total Time: 3 hours and 50 minutes (Wood, R.) (Entered: 11/22/2022)
12/14/2022	98​	ORDER granting 91 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stephen James Curley terminated. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/14/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 12/14/2022)
12/21/2022	99​	MOTION for Extension of Time to Identify Successory Counsel by Anna K Curry. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 12/21/2022)
12/21/2022	100​	ORDER granting 99 Plaintiff's Letter Motion for an Extension of Time. Plaintiff Anna Curry requests to extend the December 28, 2022 deadline for entry of an appearance as a self-represented litigant or appearance of successor counsel, as set forth in this Court's 98 Order. I grant Ms. Curry a thirty-day extension. Unless an appearance by Ms. Curry or successor counsel enters on or before January 27, 2023, this case may be subject to dismissal or default. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e). The dates set forth in this order may be extended for good cause pursuant to a motion filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/21/2022. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 12/21/2022)
01/19/2023	103​	NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan J. Einhorn on behalf of Anna K Curry (Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/19/2023)
01/23/2023	104​	ORDER LIFTING STAY. On December 14, 2022, I granted the plaintiff's former counsel's motion to withdraw his appearance and stayed proceedings until the appearance of successor counsel. Doc. No. 98, at 4. Successor counsel has appeared. Doc. No. 100. Accordingly, I lift the stay in this matter. The parties shall file a revised Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen days, on or before February 6, 2023. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/23/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 01/23/2023)
01/24/2023	​	Set Deadlines: Revised Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/6/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 01/24/2023)
02/06/2023	105​	Amended REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/06/2023)
02/07/2023	106​	ORDER re 105 Revised Form 26(f) Report and AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: I approve the parties' revised Form 26(f) report. Amended Pleadings due by 3/6/2023. Discovery due by 5/6/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 6/6/2023. Trial Brief due by 6/6/2023, if no motion for summary judgment is filed, or sixty days after a ruling on the last outstanding motion for summary judgment. Trial Ready Date 7/6/2023 or thirty days after the deadline for the joint trial memorandum. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/7/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 02/07/2023)
03/06/2023	107​	First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by Anna K Curry.Responses due by 3/27/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/06/2023)
03/09/2023	108​	TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference. Held on 12/16/2021 before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Court Reporter: Melissa J. Cianciullo. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/30/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2023. (Cianciullo, Melissa) Modified hearing date on 3/9/2023 (Reis, Julia). (Entered: 03/09/2023)
03/09/2023	109​	TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference. Held on 5/9/2022 before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Court Reporter: Melissa J. Cianciullo. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/30/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2023. (Cianciullo, Melissa) (Entered: 03/09/2023)
03/14/2023	110​	ORDER granting 107 Motion to Amend/Correct. The plaintiff shall file the amended complaint as a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/14/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 03/14/2023)
03/14/2023	111​	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Anna K Curry.(Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/14/2023)
04/19/2023	112​	Consent REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/19/2023)
04/20/2023	113​	ORDER re 112 Amendments to Revised Form 26(f) Report and AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: I approve the parties' proposed amendments to the revised Form 26(f) report. Doc. No. 112. Discovery due by 4/30/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 6/6/2023. Trial Brief due by 6/6/2023, if no motion for summary judgment is filed, or thirty days after a ruling on the last outstanding motion for summary judgment. Trial Ready Date 7/6/2023 or thirty days after the deadline for the joint trial memorandum. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/20/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 04/20/2023)
04/21/2023	114​	ANSWER to 111 Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses. , COUNTERCLAIM against Anna K Curry by 24/7 Bailbonds, LLC, Palmetto Surety Corporation, William Sobota, Jerry Cao.(Burns, Joseph) (Entered: 04/21/2023)
04/28/2023	115​	MOTION to Strike Defendants' Jury Claim by Anna K Curry.Responses due by 5/19/2023 (Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/28/2023)
05/17/2023	116​	MOTION to Compel by Anna K Curry.Responses due by 6/7/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Einhorn, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/17/2023)
05/19/2023	117​	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time re Rule 26(f) Report Deadlines. (Einhorn, Jonathan) Modified event type on 5/22/2023 (Reis, Julia). (Entered: 05/19/2023)
05/22/2023	118​	ORDER granting 117 Motion for Extension of Time. An amended scheduling order will follow. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/22/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/22/2023)
05/22/2023	119​	AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motions due by 7/6/2023. Trial Brief due by 7/6/2023 if no motion for summary judgment is filed, or thirty days after a ruling on the last motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/22/2023. (Hurley, S.) (Entered: 05/22/2023)

---

CT CMECF NextGen

ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov

 

[waldojabba]

I think I understand why the suit by AC is still in litigation. The premium monies by AC is not refundable UNLESS the CT Dept of Insurance voids the bond which I'm sure AC is hoping will be the case or she might also be on the hook for the remaining 15 installment payments.

Seems the party that dropped the hint about Fd's collateral being impaired was identified and her inquiry also put heat on Palmetto Surety so they are also being investigated for writing the bond.

If Palmetto is cited for failing at normal due diligence, that could possibly make the bond void and AC would probably get her premium refunded.

Hard to tell what's happened with the Insurance Commission investigation. Although we know that Fd was fraudulent with his application, AC may be arguing that Palmetto should have caught the fraud before signing the bond and assert it was bad faith for the Bondsman and Surety to accept her premiums on behalf of Fd's release.

In other words, AC has much to lose so no doubt she needs to be creative in her defense.

Email shows prosecutor notified of bond concerns hours after Fotis Dulos release

The Connecticut and South Carolina departments of insurance are investigating the...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

A Connecticut bondwoman raised concerns with the lead prosecutor in the Fotis Dulos murder case within hours of the Farmington man’s Jan. 9 release on a $6 million bond.

[..]

She contends there should have been a closer examination of the property values that Dulos provided as collateral before the bond was signed.

The $147,000 Curry already paid is not refundable unless the Connecticut or South Carolina departments of insurance void the bond, Casey said. Curry could also be on the hook for the remaining $272,000 she was supposed to pay in installments, Casey said.

Curry could not be reached for comment. Dulos’ attorney Norm Pattis did not respond to requests on Friday for comment about the bond.

Circling back on this - This is where I get stuck. Fotis was out on bail on Jan 9 2020. That very same day "within hours" the CT bondswoman phoned the lead prosecutor ( Coangelo I presume) to tell him of her concerns that the funds/collateral did not exist to back up the bond for the $6m.
What happened then? What is Coangelo's legal obligation now ? Does he tell the defendants lawyer - Who tells Palmetto et al ? When do they tell Anna ?
Why did Fotis remain out on bail for almost another three weeks? Just Defendant's due process? Slow workings of the court? Why didn't someone get sent to his house to pick him up until things got resolved?
With bond set at 6m they knew he was a flight risk and yet they waited almost three weeks and tipped him off that his bond was getting revoked so he fled...permanently.
Seems off to me just from a practical common sense view but ianal -
And Just My Opinion

 

[Seattle1]

Circling back on this - This is where I get stuck. Fotis was out on bail on Jan 9 2020. That very same day "within hours" the CT bondswoman phoned the lead prosecutor ( Coangelo I presume) to tell him of her concerns that the funds/collateral did not exist to back up the bond for the $6m.
What happened then? What is Coangelo's legal obligation now ? Does he tell the defendants lawyer - Who tells Palmetto et al ? When do they tell Anna ?
Why did Fotis remain out on bail for almost another three weeks? Just Defendant's due process? Slow workings of the court? Why didn't someone get sent to his house to pick him up until things got resolved?
With bond set at 6m they knew he was a flight risk and yet they waited almost three weeks and tipped him off that his bond was getting revoked so he fled...permanently.
Seems off to me just from a practical common sense view but ianal -
And Just My Opinion

First, the $6M Bond by Palmetto Surety Corp (PSC) would have been payable to the State of CT, and PSC would have been on the hook to cover this amount in full had FD ever fled and/or defaulted on the terms of his bond release, regardless of FD's fraudulent bond application.

Second, understanding that the State of CT was never at risk for losing $6M if FD failed to appear in Court, neither the surety and/or licensing of the subject defendants named in AC's complaint are the responsibility of the DA or the lead prosecutor. IMO, the prosecutor's office probably alerted the State Insurance Commission about the complaint received from another bondsman, and copied the defense. Any State investigation would fall on this office, not the prosecutor.

A bond granted by the Court for a defendant's release from jail pending Trial is intended only as an assurance the defendant will appear in Court when required, or risk forfeiting the collateral by the defendant to the PSC. Depending on the capacity of the underwriter, collateral by the applicant is typically in an amount equal to the risk by the Surety.

In this case, the 'whistleblower' for lack of a better word who contacted the prosecutor was another bondsman--a competitor of PSC. For all we know, she may have wanted to write this bond herself. I can't think of any other reason she'd be trying to investigate a SC Underwriter, legally doing business in CT, but to eliminate the competition.

Also, when the whistleblower was sounding alarms with the prosecutor on January 9, while FD's real estate collateral may have been impaired, this doesn't necessarily mean that PSC's own insurance risk ratio was in violation of any State law. For example, most likely unknown to the whistleblower, PSC also had $3M indemnity agreement from AC in addition to the real estate property that the whistleblower was questioning.

Ultimately, we know PSC was in communication with the CT Insurance Commission and motioned the Court of it's intent to pull the $6M bond issued for FD's release, and the Court called an emergency hearing.

We don't know exactly when PSC learned FD's application was fraudulent. PSC may have been talking with FD and AC for a week to cure the deficit and when this failed, they alerted the Court themselves.

FD was obviously aware he would be going to jail at the conclusion of the hearing after failing to cure his bond collateral deficit, and I think FD proved to be more work for Palmetto than he was worth. They're still dealing with the effects of having FD as a customer. MOO

https://www.palmettosurety.com/