One of San Angelo’s most well known venues was recently sold to out-of-town buyer, whose purchase of the space at 1911 S. Bryant came without the adjacent parking lot.
The deal might have been “better than nothing”, but now the buyer, Shamrock Capital Corp., who reportedly intends to turn Mejor Que Nada into an eccentric office space with the fountain, would like to purchase the $95,000+ accompanying parking lot. The problem is the lot is worth six times more than its sticker price to Tom Green County, who holds the deed in trust as collateral for a popular local bail bond company, Zapata Bail Bonds.
“There’s a statute and it says that you can get collateral release, but you have to have that amount of money available,” explained Dianna Spieker, Chair of the local Bail Bond Board at their monthly meeting Wednesday.
The property is valued at $95,940. When property is put up as collateral, its value is multiplied by six, which determines the balance a bondsman has in his account to issue bonds. With the multiplier, the property’s value to the board is $575,640. As of Thursday morning, Zapata only had $99,000 total on his account, meaning that he needs to submit another $401,640 before the property can be released.
To further compound the issue, Ray Zapata, owner and namesake of the bonding firm, has run his business for years out of the venue, using the address for correspondence with the Tom Green County Bail Bond Board, who regulates all bonding companies in the county.
When the building sold, the business moved, but word of the relocation never reached the board in writing. The bail bonding company now not only has a parking lot they can’t sell, but has fallen out of compliance with state law by failing to notify the local board of their change of address.
“Zapata Bail Bonds, we have not been able to do an audit on them,” Spieker told the board. “They are not at the location that is in our books that say they are at 1911 S. Bryant. Chief (Deputy) Pearce has gone by there several times. I have a statement that says that they are not at that location, so it’s kind of hard to audit if you don’t know where that office is.”
Audits on bonding companies are completed at least once every two years before a bondsman is due to renew his or her license. Ray Zapata’s license will be up for renewal in September, Spieker explained, but it wasn’t until the May 20 meeting that the board first heard where the business might be. That information was passed on by an employee, who admitted she didn’t know much about the company she was representing or the items on the agenda.
“He just sent me over here,” said Dee Ann Sheen, an employee of Zapata Bail Bonds. “The building’s been sold. I think the parking lot was delayed.”
Sheen estimated that the building was sold “two or three months ago”, but wasn’t sure exactly when, and stated that she believed Zapata was now doing business out of James P. Sadler’s office, a criminal defense attorney who offices at 16 E. Beauregard.
“I had received a phone call from [Sheen] and she’d asked how do they notify the board [of a change of address], and I said, ‘you put it in writing and you submit it,’” Spieker said. “So I knew that something was coming but we still haven’t received anything.”
Spieker said she received the phone call approximately three weeks ago, but said Sheen had not informed her then of when the company had actually physically relocated. As discussion turned to the issue of non-compliance Sheen spoke up, stating she believed she’d already taken care of the matter.
“You haven’t gotten anything? Ok, I turned something in, but I don’t know where,” she said.
The board made clear that the address change is imperative and explained that state law provides only a seven-day window for bonding companies to notify respective boards of relocations before they face penalties that could result in revocation.
Present to provide legal counsel on such matters, county attorney Chris Taylor and assistant Ginger Treadwell explained the parameters of the statute.
“If a bonding company fails to comply with the statute then the board can suspend or revoke their privilege to write bonds in this county,” Taylor said. “If the board is given information that may prove to be a violation of the rules, then the legal department, which would be us, would start looking into if we could prove the allegations and then advise the board what steps to take next, so that’s where we’re at.”
The advice was given in closed session, which went on for over an hour in the commissioners’ court chambers. At the conclusion of the session the board elected to hire an outside attorney with expertise in bail bonding companies and their legal obligations to the board as lain out by the state.
Sheen promised to update Spieker on the change of address on Thursday, and to provide an itemized list of pieces of collateral Zapata wishes to submit for acceptance at next month’s meeting. Until then, the parking lot’s deed will remain in county custody, and will only be released if an equal or greater sum is submitted to replace it.
Zapata's currently has criminal proceedings pending after allegedly forging one of his client's will. Spieker explained that the allegations will not have an impact on his ability to write bonds unless he is convicted.
"It does not affect his ability to issue bonds," she said. "That is a separate incident outside of what the Bail Bond Board has authority over. Because he has collateral and available collateral, he is still available to bond. Our court system is you are innocent until proven guilty, so that is not anything that the Bail Bond Board is concerned with at this time."
For further reading on Zapata's criminal case or the other cases tied to it, click here.
Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily
Required
Post a comment to this article here: