JIM BAILEY AND J. J. LANE, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Bail bondsmen appealed an estreated surety bond judgment, challenging whether they received adequate notice of the defendant's required court appearance. The court held that when a statute requires notice but does not specify the manner, actual notice must be received, and mere mailing to a last-known address without confirmation of receipt is insufficient.
The court reversed the forfeiture judgment, holding that when a statute requires notice but does not expressly direct the manner of giving it, the person to be notified must receive actual notice before the notice is effective. Mere mailing to a last-known address does not satisfy this requirement.
[1] A statute requiring notice, but not specifying the manner of service, necessitates actual notice to be effective.
[2] Statutes providing for forfeitures are strictly construed.
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“It is settled that when the Legislature requires the giving of notice, but does not expressly direct the manner of giving notice, the person to be informed must receive actual notice before it will be effective.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that actual notice is required when a statute mandates notice without specifying the manner of delivery.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Kelly was arrested on felony charges in St. Johns County. Lane, a bail bondsman in Duval County, was engaged to post bond and contracted wit…
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 Strict Construction Of Forfeiture Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, who are bail bondsmen, seek review of a money judgment entered against them upon an estreated surety bond. The determinative point is whether they had notice to produce a defendant whose appearance they secured.
The defendant Kelly was arrested in St. Johns County upon felony charges. His family contacted appellant Lane who operated as a bail bondsman in Duval County and engaged him to post bond for the defendant. Lane accepted the premium and agreed to the undertaking. Lane then contacted appellant Bailey who acted as his corresponding bail bondsman in St. Johns County for the same surety company with the request that he execute the bond for the defendant. As an accommodation to Lane, Bailey alone signed and executed the bond but received no portion of the premium.1 Before an appearance was required Bailey moved to Alachua County but left no forwarding address with the postal authorities or with the clerk of the court where the bond was returnable. When the defendant’s appearance was required before the court the clerk transmitted written notice thereof to Bailey via United States mail, at the mailing address he had furnished the clerk. As might be expected, the letter was never received by Bailey. When the surety failed to produce the defendant as required by the notice, the bail was estreated and a capias issued for the defendant’s re-arrest.
Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b), F. S.A., mandates that the clerk of the court give a surety notice of a defendant’s required appearance except under stated conditions. That statute is silent with respect to the form of notice required or the manner in which it is to be served. The consistent view of such a statute is expressed in Johnson Service Co. v. Climate Control Contr., Inc., 478 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.Civ.App.1972):
“It is settled that when the Legislature requires the giving of notice, but does *34not expressly direct the manner of giving notice, the person to be informed must receive actual notice before it will be effective.”
Because of the familiar rule that statutes providing for forfeitures are strictly construed, Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla.1950), we must presume that in the enactment of Section 903.26(1) (b), supra, the Legislature intended the highest form of notice to be afforded a bondsman.2
The judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to discharge the forfeiture and cancel the bond.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…s obligation to produce the defendant in court invalidates an order of estreature and forfeiture entered against the surety. Estate of Maltie, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The second notice, however, advising the surety of the fait accompli of forfeiture, is, definitively, not a condition precedent to forfeiture. Thus, we agree that “[I]t would…
-
Wiley v. State, 451 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…tween 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 been given notice that defendant should appear, as required by section 903.-26(l)(b), and both o…1 / 2
-
William Robert Ryan (Al Estes Bonding Company) v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ovides that a bail bond shall not be forfeited in the absence of 72 hour advance notice to the surety of a court date. This subsection has been construed to require actual notice. Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); 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).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)