AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA ZAPATA AND 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the judgment because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record for review.
American Bankers Insurance Company, as surety on a bail bond, became liable when its insured failed to appear. After paying the judgment, the company …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540 cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
American Bankers Insurance Company appeals the denial of its motion to vacate a final judgment entered pursuant to an order forfeiting a criminal bail bond. We affirm.
On August 2, 1999, an amended final judgment was entered against American Bankers Insurance Company. As surety on an appearance bond, American Bankers had become liable when its insured failed to appear in criminal court. American Bankers paid the judgment and sought, pursuant to rule 1.540, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, to vacate the judgment based on its excusable neglect. Following a hearing at which American Bankers presented the factual basis underlying its claim of excusable neglect, the trial court denied the motion. No record of this proceeding was filed with this court. American Bankers now contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion.
In Lynn v. Alistar Steakhouse & Sports Bar, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court was compelled to affirm when the parties failed to provide either a transcript of the evidentiary hearing or a stipulated statement of the evidence and proceedings pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure. Lynn is analogous to this case and mandates an affirmance. Furthermore, the challenged order on its face reveals neither error nor abuse of discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Finally, we point out for the parties’ consideration that the release and satisfaction entered on August 17, 1999, does not refer to the amended final judgment of August 2, 1999, but to the earlier final judgment dated July 21, 1999.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Byrne v. Miller, 965 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…e v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Metzler v. Metzler, 779 So. 2d 412, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Moreover, the final judgment “on its face reveals neither error nor abuse of discretion.” Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Zapata, 761 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d 1150). At oral argument, the Mother’s attorney properly conceded that the trial court’s final judgment should be corrected [*318] in one respect.1 When the final hearing was held, the Mother wa…
-
Bain v. UBS Real Est. Sec., Inc., 50 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Freemon v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 46 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Zapata, 761 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). POLEN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Lynn v. Allstar Steakhouse & Sports BAR, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Manicia Chatman v. London, 579 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)