THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR USE AND BENEFIT OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SERGIO QUESADA, ET AL., 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.
The trial court erred in granting a partial remission of a bail bond forfeiture after the forfeiture had been reduced to judgment.
A bail bond was forfeited when the defendant failed to appear. The forfeiture was later reduced to judgment. The surety paid the judgment and then sou…
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 Setting Aside Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order of the trial court granting partial remission of a bail bond. For the following reasons, we vacate the order of remission.
The surety in this action, Classified Insurance Company, issued a bail bond for Sergio Quesada in the amount of $12,000. The bond was conditioned on Quesada’s appearing before the trial court to answer criminal charges. When Quesada failed to appear, the bond was forfeited by the criminal division of the trial court on September 19, 1985. In January, 1986, the forfeiture was estreated to the civil division. A final judgment was entered on February 27, 1986. On August 13, 1986, the surety paid the final judgment and received a satisfaction. Thirteen months later, on September 27, 1987, the surety filed a motion in the civil division seeking a remission of forfeiture on the ground that Quesada had been apprehended on March 11, 1986. The circuit court granted the motion and entered an order providing for a 70% remission of the forfeited bail bond.
The authority of the trial court to order a remission is derived from section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1985). Once a forfeiture has been reduced to judgment, however, section 903.27, Florida Statutes (1985), exclusively governs the setting aside of a judgment. Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In this case, the forfeiture was reduced to judgment because of the surety’s failure to pay the forfeiture within the prescribed time period. The trial court incorrectly invoked the provisions of section 903.28 on behalf of the surety where section 903.27 controlled. The trial court, therefore, erred in granting a partial remission.
Accordingly, the order of remission is vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the final judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 558 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…er forfeiture), and section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1987) (remission of forfeiture). Neither of those statutory provisions is available where, as here, the forfeiture has been reduced to judgment. State ex rel. Metropolitan Dade County v. Quesada, 529 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Resolute Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dade County, 289 So. 2d 456, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). American Bankers concedes that sections 903.26 and 903.28 are unavailable to it, but argues that relief is available under subsection 9…
-
Cardoza v. State, 98 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…(Emphasis added). This Court has held that “[o]nce a forfeiture has been reduced to judgment ... section 903.27, Florida Statutes (1985), exclusively governs the setting aside of a judgment.” State for Use & Benefit of Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Quesada, 529 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)). Appellants acknowledged as much, citing section 903.27 in their motion filed in the circuit court. While doing so, however, they failed to comply with a…
Authorities Cited
- Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)