KENNETH A. SCHAEFER AND ALLIED FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants, a bail bondsman and surety company, challenge a judgment forfeiting a bail bond when the defendant they secured failed to appear. The court reversed, holding that bail bondsmen must receive actual notice of a defendant's required court appearance, and the trial court's policy of constructive notice through court files was improper.
Bail bondsmen must receive actual notice of a defendant's required appearance. The trial court erred in implementing a policy of constructive notice based on information contained in court files. The judgment of forfeiture was improper without actual notice to the appellants.
[1] A surety bail bondsman must receive actual notice of a defendant's required court appearance.
[2] A trial court's policy of constructive notice to bail bondsmen of scheduled appearances is invalid when actual notice is legally required.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The law is well settled that the surety bail bondsman must receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for notice to bail bondsmen
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Beyer was arrested in Monroe County for violation of probation. On July 12, 1978, Beyer and his attorney were notified in writing of a hearing sc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remission Of Bond Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of a money judgment entered against them upon an estreat-ed bail bond and an order denying application for remission of bond forfeiture.
The determinative point on appeal is whether appellants had proper notice to produce a defendant whose appearance they secured.
The defendant, John Beyer was arrested in Monroe County for violation of probation and incarcerated in Monroe County Jail. On July 12, 1978 Beyer and his attorney were informed in writing of a hearing to be held on July 24, 1978. On July 20, 1978 appellants caused the defendant to be released from jail upon their surety bond.
The arrest card of the Monroe County Sheriff indicated that the appearance date for Beyer was to be announced. Beyer did not advise appellants of the hearing date on the 24th of July. Beyer failed to appear for the hearing on July 24th. Whereupon the court orally entered an order of estreature. On August 31st a written order was entered.
No notice of appearance for July 24th was sent to the appellants prior to the July 24th hearing date. On July 26th appellants were informed of the oral estreature order of July 24th.
Thereafter appellants located Beyer and surrendered him to the sheriff of Monroe County. Appellants timely filed an application for remission of forfeiture with an accompanying affidavit.
The trial court denied appellants’ application. The court stated in its order:
“THIS COURT acknowledges receipt of an Application For Remission of Bond Forfeiture signed by Kenneth Schaefer although same was not noticed for hearing. Upon examination of the file and records of the case, the Court finds that oral notice of the hearing on July 24,1978 was given to Defendant and his counsel in open Court on July 12, 1978; that written notice of said hearing was forwarded to Defendant in the Monroe County Jail on July 12, 1978, as well as his attorney; and that no bondsman was involved in this case prior to July 20, 1978. This Court has previously advised petitioner’s office that official information as to Court proceedings are contained in the case files maintained by the Clerk of this Court and that any information obtained from records in the Monroe County Jail as to scheduled appearances would not be controlling. This shall serve as a re-statement of the policy of this Court that bail bondsmen shall be considered constructively noticed of duly noticed and pending, appearances scheduled of record at the time a defendant is released from jail on bond.”
Appellants contend that since they did not receive notice of the date of the defendant’s hearing the trial court erred in entering the judgment. We agree and reverse.
The law is well settled that the surety bail bondsman must receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes; Resolute Insurance Company v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Bankers Fire and Casualty Company v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and Caivano v. State, 331 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The judgment and order appealed are reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…The failure to give the surety adequate notice of its obligation to produce the defendant in court invalidates an order of estreature and forfeiture entered against the surety. Estate of Maltie, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The second notice, however, advising the surety of the fait accompli of forfeiture, is, definitively, not a condition precede…
-
Wiley v. State, 451 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…The failure to give the surety adequate notice of its obligation to produce the defendant in court invalidates an order of estreature and forfeiture entered against the surety. Estate of Maltie, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The second notice, however, advising the surety of the fait accompli of forfeiture, is, definitively, not a condition precede…
-
William Robert Ryan (Al Estes Bonding Company) v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…d within 30 days. Subsection (l)(b) of § 903.26 provides that a bail bond shall not be forfeited in the absence of 72 hour advance notice to the surety of a court date. This subsection has been construed to require actual notice. Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1st DCA 1973). The burden of showing compliance with this advance notice requirement is on the state. Bankers Fire & Casualty Co. v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Resolute Insurance C…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Bankers Fire & Cas. Co. v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Caivano v. State of Fla. & Collier Cnty., 331 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)