AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, BY AND THROUGH ITS AGENT, ATLAS BAIL BONDS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTONIO CAMACHO AND STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
American Bankers Insurance Company appealed the denial of its motion to set aside a bail bond forfeiture. The court reversed, finding that the trial court erred by failing to provide the surety with express actual notice of a continued hearing date as required by Florida law, making the bond forfeiture invalid.
The trial court erred because the clerk failed to provide express actual notice of the continued hearing date to the surety as required by law. The failure to furnish notice invalidates the order of estreature and forfeiture. Accordingly, the bond forfeiture order must be reversed and remanded.
[1] A surety company must receive express actual notice of a required court appearance to support a bond forfeiture.
[2] The notice requirement for bond forfeiture applies to each subsequent appearance necessitated by court continuances.
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“Section 903.26(l)(b) requires the clerk of the court to provide the surety with 'at least 72 hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant.'”
Establishes the mandatory notice requirement for sureties in bail bond forfeiture cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntonio Camacho was arrested on drug trafficking and related charges with total bond of $245,750. Atlas Bail Bonds posted $35,000 on one charge. The c…
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 Bail Bond Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
This is an appeal from a final order denying a motion for remission of bond forfeiture. At issue is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s, American Bankers Insurance Company, Motion to Set Aside the Bail Bond Estreature because the notice requirements of section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997) were not met. We answer the question in the affirmative, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Antonio Camacho (“Camacho”) was arrested, and bond was set at $200,000 for a trafficking in cocaine charge, $35,000 for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, $10,000 for possession of cocaine, $750 for possession of paraphernalia, and $400 for driving with a suspended license. Appellant’s agent, Atlas Bail Bonds (“Atlas”), was one of three bond companies that posted bond for the defendant, posting $35,000 on the possession with intent to sell/deliver charge.
On May 13, 1997, the Clerk of the Court noticed Atlas, and all other interested par ties, of Camacho’s jury trial to be held on May 27, 1997. Camacho did not appear for the trial and, at the request of another bondsman, not Atlas, the court granted 30 days to locate him and bring him to trial. On June 30, 1997, Camacho was not returned to the court, and the court estreated the $35,000 bond posted by Atlas, as well as the bonds posted by the other bondsmen. Thereafter, Atlas filed an Emergency Motion to Set Aside the Bail Bond Estreature arguing that the surety had not received notice of the continued hearing date, as required by section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). The court denied the motion, and Atlas appealed.
Section 903.26(l)(b) requires the clerk of the court to provide the surety with “at least 72 hours’ notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant.” This section has been interpreted to require “express actual notice” to the surety companies, and not merely constructive notice. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 499 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Hagman, 467 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(clerk is required to give three days’ actual notice of a proceeding requiring the presence of the defendant, except for continuances of less than 72 hours). The notice requirement also applies to each subsequent appearance necessitated by court continuances. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co., 499 So. 2d at 934; Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co.; Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
The notice requirements are a strict prerequisite to forfeiture of the bond. Southland Ins. Co., Sur. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Failure to furnish notice invalidates the order of estreature and forfeiture. See Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
In this case, while Atlas received notice of the original trial date (May 27), it is undisputed that the clerk failed to provide express actual-notice of the continued hearing date (June 30) at which the bond was ultimately estreated; therefore, the estrea-ture and forfeiture of the bond were invalid. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jeb Bush v. Int'l Fid. INS. Co., 834 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ot merely constructive notice. The notice requirement also applies to each subsequent appearance necessitated by court continuances. The notice requirements are a strict prerequisite to the forfeiture of the bond.” Amer. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Camacho, 727 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citations omitted). If the notice requirements are not met, the order of estreature and forfeiture is invalid. Id. The state’s failure to comply with section 903.26(l)(b) need not necessarily invalidate the bonding agreeme…
-
Universal Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 830 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…previously held that the notice requirements in the statute are a strict prerequisite to forfeiture of the bond. In addition, the statute has been interpreted to require express actual notice to the surety. See American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Camacho, 727 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Proper notice to sureties under the statute is an essential part of bond forfeiture proceedings. See also Bush v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., — So. 2d -, 2002 WL 31175207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The notice of court date in th…
Authorities Cited
- Ramsey v. State of Fla. & Gerald Lee Hemphill, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Natividad Silva v. Silva, 467 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- King v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Southland Ins. Co. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 499 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)