Can one person in Texas hold multiple bail bond licenses by running several bail bond companies under different names?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1023: Can One Person Hold Several Bail Bond Licenses Under Different Names?

Plain-English summary

In Hidalgo County, some bondsmen had figured out a workaround. The county keeps a bail bond list at the jail, and a prisoner picking a bondsman is more likely to land on a name that appears more than once. So a single bondsman would set up several bail bond companies under different assumed names, get a separate license for each, and rack up multiple listings. One example the district attorney gave: a husband licensed for "H-1 Bail Bonds" and his wife for "W-1 Bail Bonds," and then the husband seeking yet another license for "H-3 Bail Bonds." The county asked whether its bail bond board could cap this at one license per person.

The Attorney General said yes, the board can and in fact must, because the bail bond statute (article 2372p-3) does not authorize giving any person more than one license. The reasoning is straightforward once you see how the statute defines who can be licensed. After a 1981 amendment, the act defines "person" as only an individual or a corporation. It used to include "other business entities" and "associations of persons," but that language was removed. So the license attaches to a human being or a corporation, not to a trade name.

Running a business under an assumed name does not change that. The application form asks for "the name under which the business shall be conducted," singular, and nothing in the statute lets a licensee operate under more than one name. A prior opinion had confirmed the act does not prohibit using an assumed name at all, but using one is not the same as becoming a separate legal entity. "H-1 Bail Bonds" and "H-3 Bail Bonds," both owned by the same man, are not two different applicants. They are one person doing business under two labels.

The opinion added a related point about how bonds get signed. When the licensed surety is an individual, that individual has to personally sign the bond; article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has long been read to require the surety to sign personally rather than through an attorney-in-fact. That reinforces the idea that the license and the responsibility run to a real person, not to an interchangeable set of business names.

Put it all together and the answer follows: because the statute only lets an individual or a corporation be licensed, and a single owner's multiple assumed-name businesses are not separate entities, a county bail bond board has no authority to grant that one person two or more bail bond licenses.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The bail bond statute this opinion construed, article 2372p-3 (V.T.C.S.), was later recodified into the Occupations Code chapter governing bail bond sureties, and the licensing rules have been amended over the years. The Code of Criminal Procedure provisions on bonds have also changed. Anyone dealing with bail bond licensing today should check the current Occupations Code and county bail bond board rules rather than rely on the old article and section numbers used here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

County bail bond boards: The opinion told them they had no authority to issue more than one bail bond license to any single person, and supported capping licenses at one per individual or corporation.

Bondsmen: The opinion closed the multiple-listings workaround. A bondsman could still use an assumed name, but could not hold several licenses by operating separate assumed-name companies.

People choosing a bondsman from a jail list: The opinion protected the integrity of the bail bond list by preventing one bondsman from padding it with several entries under different names.

Common questions

Can a Texas bondsman hold more than one bail bond license?
No. The Attorney General concluded that article 2372p-3 does not authorize a county bail bond board to grant more than one bail bond license to any person.

Can a bondsman use an assumed (business) name?
Yes. A prior opinion (MW-321) said the statute does not prohibit using an assumed name, and the application states "the name under which the business shall be conducted." But using an assumed name does not create a separate entity eligible for its own license.

Why can't separate assumed-name companies each get a license?
Because only an individual or a corporation can be licensed, and a business operating under one assumed name is not a distinct entity from another such business owned by the same person. They are the same applicant.

Does an individual bondsman have to sign the bonds personally?
Yes. Article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted to require an individual surety to sign the bond personally rather than through an attorney-in-fact (Ex parte Meadows).

Background and statutory framework

The Hidalgo County Criminal District Attorney explained that the county had about two dozen bail bond companies, not all owned by different bondsmen, and that some bondsmen operated (or planned to operate) as many as four bail bond businesses. The reason was that multiple companies meant multiple listings on the county jail bail bond list, increasing a bondsman's chances of being chosen. The specific question was whether the bail bond board could limit the issuance of a bail bond license to one per individual even when the person sought to operate more than one company under different assumed names.

The Attorney General drew on Attorney General Opinion MW-507 (1982), which addressed who may be licensed as a bail bondsman and who may sign a bail bond under article 2372p-3 (V.T.C.S.). MW-507 explained that section 3(a) allows only "persons" licensed under the act (and persons licensed to practice law) to act as a bondsman, and that section 2(1) defines "person" as an individual or corporation, no longer including "other business entities, and associations of persons" as it did before the 1981 amendment. Thus, only an individual or a corporation may obtain a license under article 2372p-3. MW-507 further explained that when the licensee is an individual, article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the bond to be signed by the name or mark of the surety, interpreted as requiring the surety to sign personally rather than through an attorney-in-fact (Ex parte Meadows; Attorney General Opinion WW-889 (1960)), so an individual licensee cannot appoint an agent to sign bonds on its behalf.

Section 6(a) of article 2372p-3 provides that a license application shall include "the name under which the business shall be conducted." Attorney General Opinion MW-321 (1981) had stated that no provision of article 2372p-3 prevents the use of an assumed name, while noting that no provision allows a licensee to operate under more than one name (the statute referring to "the name," singular).

Putting these together, the Attorney General reasoned that while a bail bondsman may operate under an assumed name, only the individual (or corporation) qualifies as an applicant, and when acting as a surety the individual must sign the bond personally. It is the individual, not the assumed-name business, that is eligible to apply. A bail bond business operating under an assumed name is not a distinct entity from another such business bearing a different assumed name, so the individual owner of both cannot be eligible for two licenses. Because article 2372p-3 prohibits issuing a license to anyone other than an individual or a corporation, a county bail bond board is without authority to grant more than one bail bond license to any person.

Citations

Statutory authority:

• Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 2372p-3, § 2(1) ("person" means an individual or corporation, after the 1981 amendment); § 3(a) (only licensed persons and licensed attorneys may act as a bondsman); § 6(a) (application states the name under which the business shall be conducted)
• Code of Criminal Procedure art. 17.08 (bond signed by the name or mark of the surety; individual surety must sign personally)

Cases:

• Ex parte Meadows, 87 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935) (surety must sign the bond personally, not through an attorney-in-fact)

Related opinions:

• Attorney General Opinion MW-507 (1982) (who may be licensed and who may sign a bail bond under article 2372p-3)
• Attorney General Opinion MW-321 (1981) (article 2372p-3 does not prohibit use of an assumed name)
• Attorney General Opinion WW-889 (1960) (surety's personal signature on the bond)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1023
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1023.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

February 27, 1989

Honorable Rene Guerra
Criminal District Attorney
Hidalgo County Courthouse
Edinburg, Texas 78539

Opinion No. JM-1023

Re: Authority of a county bail bond board to limit issuance of a bail bond license to a single individual who seeks to operate under different assumed names (RQ-1636)

Dear Mr. Guerra:

You ask whether the Hidalgo Bail Bond Board has the authority to limit the issuance of a bail bond license to one license per individual even though the person seeks to operate more than one bail bond company under different assumed names.

You provide the following information that prompts your question.

In Hidalgo County, we have approximately twenty-four (24) bail bond companies. Not all of these businesses are owned by different bondsmen. In fact, some bondsmen operate or plan to operate as many as four different bail bond businesses. The reason for operating more than one bonding company is because it allows them for [sic] more than one listing at the County Jail Bail Bond List, which subsequently increases one's chances of being chosen when a bondsman is sought by a prisoner.

For example: H (husband) is licensed to operate H-1 Bail Bonds and W (wife) is licensed to operate W-1 Bail Bonds. The issue arises when H seeks a license to operate H-3 Bail Bonds.

In Attorney General Opinion MW-507 (1982) the questions of who may be licensed as a bail bondsman and who may sign a bail bond under article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., were addressed. In Attorney General Opinion MW-507 it was stated:

Section 3(a) of article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., provides that no person may act as a bondsman except 'persons' licensed under the act and persons licensed to practice law. Section 2(1) defines 'person' as an individual or corporation; it no longer includes 'other business entities, and associations of persons' as it did prior to the amendment of article 2372p-3 in 1981. Thus, only an individual or a corporation may currently obtain a license under article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S.

. . . .

If the licensee is an individual, the statute neither prohibits nor authorizes the licensee to have agents or employees sign the bail bonds in the licensee's behalf. However, article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the bond to be signed by the name or mark of the surety. This statute has been interpreted as requiring the surety to sign the bond personally rather than to have the attorney-in-fact for the surety sign the bond. See Ex parte Meadows, 87 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935); Attorney General Opinion WW-889 (1960). Article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., provides no exception to article 17.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the surety is an individual. Therefore, an individual licensee cannot appoint an agent to sign bonds on its behalf. While such an appointment would not clearly violate article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., it would violate article 17.08, Code of Criminal Procedure, when the surety is an individual. (Emphasis added.)

Section 6(a) of article 2372p-3 provides that the application of a person for a license shall include "the name under which the business shall be conducted." In Attorney General Opinion MW-321 (1981) it was stated that no provision of article 2372p-3 prevents the use of an assumed name. No provision is made for the licensee to operate under more than one name, the statute providing "the name under which the business shall be conducted." (Emphasis added.)

While a bail bondsman may operate his business under an assumed name, only the individual (or corporation) may qualify as an applicant; and when acting as a surety the individual must sign the bond personally. It is the individual that is eligible to apply for a license rather than the business being operated under an assumed name. A bail bond business operating under an assumed name is not a distinct entity from another such business bearing a different assumed name so as to enable the individual owner of both businesses to be eligible for two licenses. Since article 2372p-3 prohibits the issuance of a license to anyone other than an individual or a corporation, a county bail bond board is without authority to grant more than one bail bond license to any person.

SUMMARY

Article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., does not authorize a county bail bond board to grant more than one bail bond license to any person.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General