THE AMERICAN DRUGGISTS' INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND ROSE BUBUCHA, APPELLEES
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.
A bail bond surety appealed the forfeiture of four $5,000 bail bonds after its client failed to appear for sentencing. The court held that a bond's private contractual notation limiting its use does not automatically terminate the surety's obligation to the state, and that bonds can only be automatically canceled upon adjudication of guilt or innocence, not merely upon entry of a plea.
A bail bond cannot be automatically canceled by a private contractual provision that does not address the bond's termination obligations to the state. Under Florida Statutes § 903.31, a bond is only automatically canceled when there is an adjudication of guilt or innocence, not merely upon entry of a plea. The surety has an ongoing obligation to ensure the defendant's presence in court and must obtain a court order of discharge from the judge.
[1] A bail bond is not automatically canceled as a matter of law unless there is an adjudication of guilt or innocence.
[2] A notation on a bail bond limiting its validity for presentence investigation does not automatically terminate the bond obligation to the state when the court orders a pr…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled. An adjudication of guilt or innocence of the defendant shall satisfy the conditions of the bond.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that only adjudication of guilt or innocence automatically satisfies bond conditions, not entry of a plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Druggists' Insurance Company posted four $5,000 bail bonds for a defendant charged with various crimes. Each bond contained a notation statin…
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 Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant posted four $5,000 bail bonds for a client who had been charged with various crimes. Each bond contained this notation on its face: “This bond not valid for presentence investigation unless authorized by Surety.”
The client later appeared and entered pleas of nolo contendere to each charge, whereupon the court withheld adjudication, ordered a presentence investigation, continued the matter for sentencing, and let the client remain at liberty on the same bail bonds. Appellant’s authorization for this action was not obtained. When the client failed to appear for sentencing, the court forfeited the bonds.
Appellant contends that the bonds were automatically canceled when the lower court failed to obtain proper authorization as provided in the agreement. For the following reasons, we disagree and affirm the actions of the lower court.
At the time of the proceedings below, section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1979), read as follows:
When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled. Conviction or acquittal of the defendant will satisfy a bond unless the court otherwise provides in the judgment. (Emphasis added.)
The 1970 Legislative Committee comment to this section found at Ch. 70-339, § 36, Laws of Fla., provides:
The ... section makes conviction or acquittal satisfaction of all undertakings rather than limiting it to those written by bondsmen ....
Subsequently, Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), held that the words “conviction” (or acquittal) required the entry of an order of adjudication of guilt (or innocence) and was not met by the mere entry of a guilty plea or return of a jury verdict.
Thereafter, in 1980, the statute was amended to read as follows:
When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled. An adjudication of guilt or innocence of the defendant shall satisfy the conditions of the bond. The original appearance bond shall not be construed to guarantee deferred sentences, payment of fines, or attendance at educational or rehabilitation facilities the court otherwise provides in the judgment. (Emphasis added.)
We construe this statute to mean that a bond can only be automatically canceled as a matter of law when there is either an adjudication of guilt or innocence. This achieves a desired goal of uniformity and helps preserve the function of bail which is to secure the attendance of the accused to answer the charge against him.
A terminating provision such as the one sub judice may have some efficacy, at least as between the client and bonding company, but we conclude that it does not effect an automatic termination of the bond obligation to the state, or the court. We feel that a bail bondsman has an obligation to be present in court and produce his client whenever the condition is satisfied or the case is up for further consideration or disposition. The bonding company or bondsman must apprise the court of any special condition or objection to continuation of the bond. An order of discharge must be obtained on the satisfaction of all bond conditions or restrictions other than those specifically approved in section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1981). The court may impose reasonable requirements before entering such order of discharge as, for example, the production of the accused before the court.
The judgments of estreature are AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Orange Cnty., 634 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1994)…dings to avoid forfeiture. Accord AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 611 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); cf. American Druggists’ Ins. Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (construing prior version of statute to require adjudication); Accredited Sur. and Casualty Co. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (same). This reading is consistent with section 903.045, Florida Statutes (1991), which e…1 / 2
-
State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. The state appeals an order setting aside a bond estreature. We reverse. The trial judge was persuaded that this court’s decision in American Druggists’ Insurance Company v. State, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla.2d DCA 1982), and the first district’s decision in Accredited Surety and [*747] Casualty Company, Inc. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), had been rendered inapplicable by amendments in 1980 and 1986 to section 903.31, Florida Statut…
-
Chase v. Orange Cnty., 511 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ment would then be subject to review.” 92 So. 2d at 268. See also Williams v. State, 431 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). To support jurisdiction, appellant cites several cases, but they are inapposite. In American Druggists’ Insurance Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the court affirmed a “judgment of estrea-ture.” In Resolute Insurance Co. v. State, 290 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), the appeal was from a final judgment denying a motion to vacate bond estreatures. Similarly, in Resolute Insu…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., Inc. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)