Zapata Bail Bonds Barred from Business in Tom Green County

Zapata Bail Bonds is officially out of business in Tom Green County. At a regular meeting of the Bail Bond Board Wednesday, five of six present members voted not to renew the expiring license, effectively dissolving the company that has been under suspension since Aug. 4.

The license, which owner and operator Ray Zapata has held through the board since Sept. 8, 2011, was set to expire on the same date this year. Under the laws established by the board, renewal of an existing license must be approved by a majority of the members during a regular meeting prior to expiration. If it is denied, a new application must be submitted under a different company name. The next Bail Bond Board meeting won’t take place until Sept. 16, eight days after Zapata’s expiration date.

Forced to make a decision in favor or opposed, board chair and County Treasurer Dianna Spieker called the board’s attention to recent events and made a motion.

“In light of the history and the documentation from the last hearing, it is my recommendation that we deny the renewal of said application,” Spieker said. “My reasoning behind it is because from the get-go we’ve been having collateral issues. He himself during the hearing admitted to one of the counts and didn’t fight the other two.”

The hearing Spieker referenced took place on Aug. 4, when the Bail Bond Board brought three complaints against Zapata, alleging he had moved his office without notifying the board as required; that he had sold the parking lot of Mejor Que Nada before it was released from collateral with the county; and that he had continued to write bonds using the Mejor address after the space was sold.

Zapata, who was present at that hearing, spoke through his attorney, Kirk Hawkins, in what amounted to a plea with the board: Zapata would acknowledge the second allegation, no discussion would be made on the other two, and his license would be suspended for the remainder of his term, or until Sept. 8. The board, after some discussion, agreed to the terms, but did so without a complete dismissal of the other two allegations.

“They (the other two allegations) were dismissed without prejudice, which means that we can consider them today,” explained Assistant County Attorney Ginger Treadwell on Wednesday.  “Part of the reason for doing that was so we didn’t have to go forward with proving those. We accepted the other one, but we knew we could use all of that as a basis today. I don’t believe the idea that day was to punt it to today and renew him. If that was the intention, we would have just put all the evidence on that day.”

Adding to what Treadwell had said, Spieker reminded the board that she had asked Zapata on record if he was ok with the arrangement he was proposing through his attorney and whether he understood that the allegations may resurface and be considered when he attempted to renew his license. Silent in the meeting, Zapata nodded his head in the affirmative once, and his attorney continued to speak with the board.

“He has a history of going over the collateral before we put the cap in with the jail,” Spieker said as board members discussed the motion. “Now, if I went in and tried to bond somebody out and I don’t have the money, they stop it right then.”

The problem with that practice, Spieker said, is that it makes for difficult record keeping in the treasurer’s office and could, in an extreme case, lead to the county having to take possession of collateral to pay of debts owed to the court by a bail jumper. If there isn’t enough collateral because a bondsman has overspent, the county won’t be able to reconcile the accounts, she said.

“The whole point of a bonding company is to make sure that the individual will show up for court, and it’s the bonding company’s responsibility to make them,” Spieker said. “When they get you out, that’s what they’re saying. If they don’t, the courts can then take steps against the bondsman, holding that person liable.”

The majority of board members present at Wednesday’s meeting seemed to understand the decision before them, with the exception of County Clerk Elizabeth McGill, who thought they’d agreed to disregard the three allegations discussed at the Aug. 4 hearing and wanted to know how long Zapata will have to wait to apply for a new license.

“He’s always eligible to submit a new company application,” Spieker said in an interview Thursday. “The board would look and review all applications that have been submitted. Any agent with Tom Green County under previous names, we would take those companies’ information into consideration when making a determination.”

The only drawback to repeated applications is a non-refundable $500 associated with each new submission. Otherwise, there are limitations on how many Zapata can submit or with what frequency.

After limited discussion on the matter, Spieker reiterated her motion, which was seconded by District Clerk Sheri Woodfin. A vote was then called, with defense attorney Stephanie Goodman, Jail Lieutenant Beth Holland-Mull and 119^th District Attorney George McCrea all voting in favor of denying approval for Zapata’s renewal. Only McGill opposed.