BANKERS FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
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.
A bond may not be estreated without proof that the surety received actual notice at least seventy-two hours before the defendant's required court appearance, as mandated by Florida Statute 903.26(1)(b).
A surety-bail bondsman must receive actual notice of a defendant's required court appearance at least seventy-two hours in advance before a bond may be estreated.
[1] A surety-bail bondsman must receive actual notice of a defendant's required court appearance at least seventy-two hours in advance, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and h…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Florida Statute 903.26(1)(b) requires that the surety-bail bondsman receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant”
Court's statement of the controlling legal standard from prior precedent
A sheriff sent a one-sentence letter dated April 24, 1973, to the appellant surety's agent notifying of a court appearance required on April 27, 1973,…
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
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
The salient point posed by this appeal is whether a bond may be estreated where there is no proof that the bondsman or surety was notified at least seventy-two hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, prior to the time that defendant-principal was to appear as required by Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b). Appellant-surety has contended throughout the proceedings in the trial court that it was not notified of the date that the defendant-principal was required to appear in court. The record before this Court contains a carbon copy of a one sentence letter dated April 24, 1973, from the sheriff to an agent of appellant which states that the defendant-principal is required to appear in court in Crawfordville, Florida, on April 27, 1973. There is no showing in the record that this letter was ever received by appellant. In addition, we note that as the letter is dated April 24, 1973, and apparently was deposited in the U.S. Mail by the Sheriff of Wakulla County to be delivered to appellant’s agent in Marianna, Florida, it is doubtful that appellant received the requisite seventy-two hour notice as required by Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b).
This Court has previously held that Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b) requires that the surety-bail bondsman receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant, Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla.App. 1st 1973). As the record before us is void of any proof that appellant received the required actual notice, the judgment appealed is reversed.
Reversed.
SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
William Robert Ryan (Al Estes Bonding Company) v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…quire 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). 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…
-
Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…tice of the required appearance of a defendant. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes; Resolute Insurance Company v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Bankers Fire and Casualty Company v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and Caivano v. State, 331 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The judgment and order appealed are reversed.…
-
Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 499 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…t form of notice. See Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. v. Hagman, 467 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Ryan v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Schaefer v. State, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bankers Fire and Casualty v. State, 303 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), opined that written notice is required; however, this statement was made only in dictum. In the case at bar, the only notic…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bailey v. State, 282 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)