RALPH E. CARR, APPELLANT,
v.
MATTHEW P. LAMMIE; MADDOX BONDING, INC.; MADDOX BAIL BONDS, INC.; ACCREDITED SURETY & CASUALTY, INC.; AND UNKNOWN JOHN DOE CLAIMANTS, 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.
Ralph Carr, a former bail bondsman, appeals a summary judgment order awarding $28,500 in remitted bail bond funds to Accredited Surety & Casualty, Inc. The court reverses, finding that material questions of fact remain regarding which party is entitled to the funds based on their contractual arrangements.
The trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Accredited Surety is reversed. Although Accredited Surety has a statutory right to recover bond proceeds from the state, this statutory right does not determine entitlement among the contractual parties, and genuine issues of material fact remain regarding who is entitled to the funds.
[1] A statutory right to recover bond proceeds from the state does not determine entitlement to those funds among competing claimants based on their contractual arrangements.
[2] A trial court errs in granting summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the entitlement to funds deposited in the court registry.
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“Athough Accredited Surety apparently had the right to recover the bond proceeds from the state pursuant to section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1999), in the criminal proceedings, this statutory right does not determine who, among the several claimants in this action, is entitled to these funds based upon their contractual arrangements.”
Establishes the court's key holding that statutory rights to recover from the state do not necessarily determine entitlement among contractual parties.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarr, a bail bondsman acting as agent for Accredited Surety, issued an $80,000 bond for a criminal defendant who failed to appear. Accredited Surety p…
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 Bond Estreature cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Ralph E. Carr appeals an order granting partial summary final judgment in favor of Accredited Surety & Casualty, Inc. (Accredited Surety). The order granted Accredited Surety immediate possession of $28,500 in remitted bail bond funds that had been deposited in the registry of the circuit court. We reverse.
Mr. Carr was a bail bondsman who acted as an agent for Accredited Surety and issued a bond for $80,000 for a criminal defendant. The criminal defendant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, resulting in the estreature of the bond. Accredited Surety paid the $80,000 owed on the bond to the criminal court and sought reimbursement from Mr. Carr. Accredited Surety deducted $10,000 from Mr. Carr’s build-up fund, see § 648.29, Fla. Stat. (1999), and Mr. Carr signed a promissory note for the remaining $20,000.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Carr sold his bail bond business to Matthew Lammie. As part of the purchase price for the business, Mr. Lammie paid the $20,000 promissory note owed by Mr. Carr to Accredited Surety. Thus, it appears Accredited Surety was fully reimbursed for the $30,000 it paid to the criminal court.
After the sale, the criminal defendant for whom the $30,000 bond was issued was returned to the custody of law enforcement, thus permitting the bond estreature to be set aside. Mr. Carr, believing he was entitled to the funds because he had reimbursed Accredited Surety, filed a motion to set aside the bond estreature. Upon learning of this, Accredited Surety and Mr. Lammie objected and asserted that they were entitled to the funds.
Faced with this dispute, the criminal court did not resolve the issue. Rather, the criminal court deposited $28,500, representing the proceeds from the bond remission, into the court registry to allow the parties to resolve the dispute in a declaratory judgment action. This appeal arises from the separate declaratory judgment action filed regarding those funds, which has been consolidated with a related action between Mr. Carr and Mr. Lammie regarding the sale of the bail bond business.
Accredited Surety obtained a partial summary judgment by convincing the trial court that it was the only entity entitled to seek the setting aside of the estreature from the criminal court. Athough Accredited Surety apparently had the right to recover the bond proceeds from the state pursuant to section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1999), in the criminal proceedings, this statutory right does not determine who, among the several claimants in this action, is entitled to these funds based upon their contractual arrangements. Because many genuine issues of material fact remain in this regard, we reverse the par tial summary judgment giving Accredited Surety immediate possession of these funds.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carr v. Lammie, 868 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s from the bond forfeiture were remitted. At that time, Mr. Carr, Mr. Lammie, and Accredited Surety and Casualty, Inc. (Accredited), each sought the bond forfeiture remission proceeds.1 As explained in a prior appeal of this matter, Carr v. Lammie, 816 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the criminal division of the circuit court placed the disputed funds in the court registry pending the resolution of this action, a declaratory judgment action then pending in the civil [*638] division of the circuit court regard…