SOUTH AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MICHAEL MANNING HADLEY, 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.
A surety company appeals the denial of its motion to vacate a final judgment of bond forfeiture entered against it when its principal failed to appear in criminal court. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the forfeiture after the circuit court had reduced it to final judgment, and that the surety failed to present sufficient grounds to justify vacation.
The circuit court properly denied the motion to vacate because the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the forfeiture after the circuit court had reduced it to final judgment, and the surety failed to present record evidence sufficient to authorize vacation of the judgment of estreature.
[1] A criminal court loses jurisdiction to vacate an order of forfeiture of a bond if more than thirty days have passed since the order was entered.
[2] Once a circuit court has entered a final judgment of forfeiture of a bond, the criminal court is without jurisdiction to set aside the bond estreature.
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“Forfeitures are not favored in Florida and statutes allowing for such are strictly construed by our courts.”
Establishes the foundational principle that bond forfeitures are disfavored and forfeiture statutes must be narrowly interpreted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSouth American Fire Insurance Company posted a $5,000 bond for Michael Manning Hadley's appearance in criminal court on drug possession charges. Hadle…
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
Appellant-defendant takes its interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida/denying its motion to vacate a final judgment of es-treature entered against it as surety for the appearance of the co-defendant below.
The appellant surety company and the principal, Michael Manning Hadley, entered into a bonding agreement conditioned upon the principal’s appearance before the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, to answer charges of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and possession of implements for drug use. The principal failed to appear and the court ordered the Five Thousand Dollar bond forfeited on July 22, 1971. Pursuant to § 903.27, Fla. Stat, F.S.A., the Circuit Court of the *375Eleventh Judicial Circuit entered a final judgment of forfeiture on November 30, 1971. Appellant filed a motion to vacate final judgment and discharge surety alleging that the principal was hospitalized in Massachusetts for a drug overdose and hepatitis at the time of his scheduled court appearance and was still not within the state of Florida. Prior to determination of the motion, but some ten months after the original order of forfeiture was entered, the Criminal Court of Record vacated the bond estreature entered by it on July 22, 1971. The motion to vacate still pending before the circuit court was denied on June 29, 1972, and this appeal followed.
The appellant contends that the circuit court erred in not granting the motion to vacate final judgment when the criminal court of record had previously vacated its own order of forfeiture, and when sufficient grounds for same appeared of record.
Forfeitures are not favored in Florida and statutes allowing for such are strictly construed by our courts.1 Florida Statutes, § 903.26(5)(a), F.S.A., provides that a court that has entered an order of forfeiture may discharge the same within thirty days upon a satisfactory explanation of the breach of the bond. In the instant case, almost ten months passed before the criminal court of record entered an order vacating its prior order of forfeiture. Under the aforementioned statute that court had no jurisdiction at that time to enter such an order. Therefore, any attempt by that court to discharge the forfeiture was void and of no effect.
Additionally, the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, had entered its final judgment of forfeiture on November 30, 1971, some six months before the criminal court of record attempted to vacate its order of forfeiture. Once the circuit court had reduced the order of forfeiture to final judgment, the criminal court of record was, again, without jurisdiction to set aside the bond estreature. That jurisdiction rested solely with the circuit court. Keefe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 868.
As to the other contention of the appellant we find that the record in this case falls short of that which would be necessary to authorize the setting aside of a judgment of estreature entered pursuant to Ch. 903, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. City of Miami Beach v. Boyden, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 429.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…the circuit court. We have previously held that once* the circuit court enters a judgment on the forfeiture, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction to relieve from the forfeiture. See South American Fire Insurance Company v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 374. In addition, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held in Keefe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 868, that once the forfeiture has been reduced to judgment the applicable statutory section is that section concerned with the setting asid…
-
Ferlita v. State, 380 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…dum” 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 “mandatorily followed.” Ramsey v. State, 225 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). An order of fo…
-
The State of Fla. for Use & Benefit of Dade Cnty. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 311 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ure which initially had been made there. That action of the court was ineffectual because [*124] untimely. § 903.26(5) (d) Fla.Stat, F.S.A; South American Fire Insurance Company v. State of Florida, for use and benefit of Dade County, Fla.App. 1972, 270 So. 2d 374. Thereafter, while the surety’s appeal from the order denying its motion to vacate the final judgment on the bond was pending in this court, the surety again moved the trial court (in the case in which the final judgment had been entered) for vacat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Resolute Ins. Co. v. State, 269 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Boyden, 232 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Keefe v. State, 188 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)