RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY, A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, 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.
Resolute Insurance Company, a surety on a bail bond, appeals a judgment of forfeiture after the principal failed to appear in court. The court reverses the forfeiture, holding that the surety was entitled to the statutory notice requirement before the bond could be forfeited.
The court reversed the forfeiture judgment, holding that because there was no evidence in the record that the required 72-hour notice was given to the surety as mandated by § 903.26(1)(b), the bond forfeiture must be set aside. The court did not reach the second issue regarding the effect of the previously vacated forfeiture order.
[1] A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless the clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the…
[2] Notice of required appearance is not necessary for bail bond forfeiture if the time for appearance is within seventy-two hours from the time of arrest or if the time is s…
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“A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant.”
States the statutory requirement for notice that the trial court failed to comply with
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 22, 1970, David Hesselrode as principal and Resolute Insurance as surety executed a $550 appearance bail bond for charges of careless drivi…
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 Motion To Set Aside Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant surety company, seeks review of a final judgment of estrea-ture of a bail bond conditioned on the appearance of the principal in Metropolitan Dade County Court. We reverse.
On January 22, 1970, one David Hessel-rode, as principal, and the appellant, as surety, entered into a written appearance bail bond in the sum of Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars. Said bond was conditioned upon the principal’s appearance in Metropolitan Court for Dade County, Florida, to answer charges of careless driving and driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
On November 10, 1970, the principal failed to appear in that court to answer the charges, and the appellant surety company failed to produce him. The judge of said *771court thereupon, ordered said bond forfeited under § 903.26, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Pursuant to that statute, the clerk transmitted the necessary documents to be recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and the state attorney filed a petition for final judgment on the bond forfeiture. Appellant filed a motion to set aside final judgment and discharge surety and alleged that said bond had once before been forfeited but that said order had been vacated due to the principal’s incarceration in the state of Georgia. Appellant also alleged that it had received no notice of the date set for the principal’s appearance and that the principal was still believed incarcerated in the state of Georgia. The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, solely on the pleadings and without testimony, denied the motion to vacate on February 25, 1972, and this appeal ensued.
Appellant presents two points for our consideration: (1) that the motion to set aside the final judgment of estreature should have been granted when no notice was given nor received by the appellant as provided for by § 903.26(1) (b) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and (2) that the earlier order vacating judgment and order of dismissal resulted in the cancelling of the bond pursuant to § 903.31, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Our determination of the first point makes consideration of the second unnecessary.
Florida Statutes, § 903.26 provides, inter alia :
“(1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless:
******
“(b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two hours’ notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant. Notice shall not be necessary if the time for appearance is within seventy-two hours from the time of arrest or if the time is stated on the bond.”
In the case sub judice, there appears nothing of record indicating that the requisite notice was given to the appellant, prior to the forfeiture herein contested. Thus, since forfeitures are not favored at law and since statutes providing for same are strictly construed,1 the order denying appellant’s motion to set aside final judgment and discharge surety is hereby reversed with directions to cancel the bond.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Wiley v. State, 451 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…rejudiced by the failure to timely receive notice of the original forfeiture and by the delay between the original undertaking in 1976 and the entry of final judgment in 1983. Appellants rely primarily on two cases, Resolute Insurance Co. v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) [hereinafter referred to as Resolute 7], and Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). In those cases, the appellate court reversed the forfeiture judgments because each was entered without the surety having previously b…
-
Ferlita v. State, 380 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…fied copy of the order of forfeiture, but instead merely presented his “memorandum” that the bail had been ordered forfeited. Forfeitures are not favored in Florida and statutes allowing them are strictly construed. Resolute Insurance Co. v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); South American Fire Insurance Co. v. State, 270 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Consequently, the statutory prerequisites established by the legislature for the orderly estreature and collection of bail bonds are to be “mandatoril…
-
William Robert Ryan (Al Estes Bonding Company) v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1st DCA 1973). The burden of showing compliance with this advance notice requirement is on the state. Bankers Fire & Casualty Co. v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Resolute Insurance Company v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). In the instant case, there is no record showing that the post-forfeiture notice was given. Therefore, appellant argues from analogy with Bankers and Resolute, the forfeiture must be set aside. The difficulty with this argument i…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The City of Miami v. Miller, 4 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1941)
- Ramsey v. State of Fla. & Gerald Lee Hemphill, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950)