STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGIL H. FRAZIER AND UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE 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.
This case involves a county's attempt to reverse a lower court's decision to vacate a bond forfeiture judgment. The appellate court found the application for remission of forfeiture was untimely and reversed the lower court's order, reinstating the original forfeiture judgment.
No, the application for remission of forfeiture was not timely filed. The lower court erred in vacating the forfeiture judgment because the application was filed outside the statutory period without a showing of jurisdictional defects.
“under § 903.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., such application must be made within twenty-five days from the entry of the judgment, unless there is a showing that the bond forfeiture proceeding was fatally defective on jurisdictional grounds.”
Establishes the statutory time limit for applying for remission of bond forfeiture and the exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County sought to reverse a circuit court judgment that vacated a final judgment of forfeiture on an appearance bond. The application for remissio…
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 Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida, for the use and benefit of Dade County, seeks reversal of a final judgment of the Circuit Court wherein that court vacated a final judgment of forfeiture previously entered in .an appearance bond forfeiture proceeding.1 The application for the remission of the forfeiture was filed more than six months after the judgment of forfeiture was entered.
As held by the Supreme Court of Florida in State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 274, under § 903.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., such application must be made within twenty-five days from the entry of the judgment, unless there is a showing that the bond forfeiture proceeding was fatally defective on jurisdictional grounds. The basis of the application for the remission of forfeiture was an order entered in the court in which the bond had been forfeited purporting to set aside the forfeiture. This latter order was entered more than four months after the entry of the final judgment in the Circuit Court enforcing the forfeiture. No showing has been made to bring this cause within the exception set forth in State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, supra. The order setting aside the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the final judgment enforcing the forfeiture which was dated May 11, 1959 and recorded in Minute Book 410, at page 367. See also Crompton v. State, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 692; Capitol Indemnity Insurance Company v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 156.
Reversed and remanded.
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge, CARROLL, CHAS., J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Boyden, 232 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…§ 903.271, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the surety moved to vacate the judgment, which motion was denied and properly so. See: State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 274; State for Use and Benefit of Dade County v. Frazier, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 288; State for Use and Benefit of Dade County v. Moran, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 136. The surety then filed a motion pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., contending that there was an equitable basis to relieve it from…
-
The State of Fla. for the Use & Benefit of Dade Cnty. v. Moran, 199 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…tive on jurisdictional grounds. Therefore, it was filed too late to entitle it to consideration by the trial judge. State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 274; State for Use and Benefit of Dade County v. Frazier, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So. 2d 288. The surety contends that § 903.271, supra, is not the only method by which it could seek relief, but that its relief was properly granted under rule 1.38(b) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. We make no determination as to the availabili…
Authorities Cited
- Capitol Indem. Ins. Co. v. State, 86 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1956)
- State Fire & Cas. Co. v. State, 88 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1956)
- Gibbs Crompton and Mat Robinson v. State, 78 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1955)