DONALD LEE WORTHLEY AND PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, 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 surety company's appeal of a bond forfeiture judgment is affirmed because the surety was not released upon the defendant's acceptance into a Pre-Trial Intervention Program and the motion to vacate was untimely filed.
A surety company remains liable on an appearance bond despite the defendant's acceptance into a Pre-Trial Intervention Program unless the surety is formally released, and a motion to vacate bond forfeiture filed more than 45 days after forfeiture is untimely.
[1] A surety company on an appearance bond is not exonerated from liability by the defendant's acceptance into a Pre-Trial Intervention Program unless the surety is formally…
[2] A motion to vacate a bond forfeiture order filed more than 45 days after entry of the forfeiture order is untimely under Florida Statute § 903.27(2).
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Lee Worthley was arrested for unlawful sale or distribution of a controlled substance and Public Service Mutual Insurance Company executed a $3…
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 Exoneration Of Surety cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Surety company appeals an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to an appearance bond forfeiture.
On May 2, 1974, Donald Lee Worthley was arrested for unlawful sale or distribution of a controlled substance and appellant Service Mutual Insurance Company executed an appearance bond of $3,500 on his behalf.
On June 10, Worthley was accepted in the Pre-Trial Intervention Program (deferred prosecution); however, prosecution was reinstated on July 26. Worthley, his attorney, and appellant surety were notified by mail of Worthley’s required court appearance on August 7. Worthley failed to appear and a certificate and order of bond forfeiture was entered by the trial judge.
On October 25 a final judgment for $3,500 plus costs was entered against the surety company. Approximately two months later, appellant filed its motion to vacate final judgment on the grounds that it was exonerated from liability upon Worthley’s acceptance in the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. The motion was denied and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. First, there is nothing in the record reflecting that appellant surety was released upon Worthley’s acceptance in the Pre-Trial Intervention Program or at any other time thereafter.
Second, it appears that appellant’s motion to vacate final judgment was untimely inasmuch as the filing thereof was in excess of 45 days after the order of forfeiture had been entered in violation of the time limit in § 903.-27(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 408 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…2 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), is irrelevant to the present case. . Since the mere fact that an information or indictment is not filed does not serve to discharge a surety, West v. State, 75 Fla. 342, 78 So. 275 (1918); see also Worthley v. State, 320 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), the announce-, ment would seem superfluous but for the desire of the State to avoid the impact of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(b)(1). See infra. .Such a release would have discharged the surety on the original bond.…
-
Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 373 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Worthley v. State, 320 So. 2d 479 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).…
-
Cottonbelt Ins. Co. & Douglas F. Sweet (Crews Bonding Service) v. State, 400 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…le for presenting such a motion. Compare City of Miami Beach v. Boyden, 232 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), and Resolute Insurance Company v. State, Dade County, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), with Worthley v. State, Use & Benefit of Dade County, 320 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Resolute Ins. Co. v. Brinker, 338 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and State v. Sponheim, 366 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We make no attempt to answer that question. It is sufficient to say that appellants have not demonstrated…