RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD P. BRINKER, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR 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.
Surety companies that posted appearance bonds in criminal proceedings sought to recover costs and interest assessed in estreature judgments more than 45 days after entry. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that the statutory remedy to challenge such judgments within 45 days was exclusive and the sureties had forfeited their right to relief by failing to timely appeal.
No. The statutory remedy provided in Florida Statute § 903.27(2), allowing review of estreature judgments within 45 days, is exclusive and controlling. Sureties who fail to seek relief within that period forfeit their right to challenge the judgments through subsequent independent actions.
[1] A surety company seeking to recover costs and interest assessed in judgments entered on estreature orders must seek review within the forty-five day period provided by st…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an independent action filed by a surety company seeking to recover costs and interest after the statutory period for review…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The sureties executed the bonds, received the premiums, knew what the statutes provided and, upon receipt of the final judgments if they thought there were any errors contained therein, they should have sought relief within the forty-five day period provided for in § 903.27(2), Fla.Stat.”
Establishes the court's rationale that sureties have a duty to timely challenge judgments and forfeit their right by failing to act within the statutory period
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceResolute Insurance Company and other surety companies executed appearance bonds in criminal proceedings. When the defendants failed to appear, the jud…
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 Jurisdiction Of Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Chief Judge.
The appellants executed surety bonds in certain criminal proceedings. Thereafter, as the matters proceeded, the defendants failed to appear and orders of estreature were entered by the several judges presiding over the criminal causes. Subsequently, statutory proceedings were instituted pursuant to § 903.27(1), Fla.Stat., to have judgments entered on the estreature orders; five such judgments were duly entered against the appellants as the sureties on the original appearance bonds. These judgments assessed costs and provided for interest from the date of the judgments. Pursuant to the provisions of § 903.27(1), Fla. Stat., copies of these judgments were forwarded to the appellants as the original sureties. Thereafter, each of the judgments were paid and satisfied.
Subsequently, more than forty-five days after the entry of the several judgments, the surety companies filed an independent action1 seeking to recover the items assessed as costs and interest in the several judgments against the appellee as the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that it was without jurisdiction to entertain same. Implicit in its holding was that the remedy afforded a surety company, pursuant to § 903.27(2), Fla.Stat., to seek review of any such final judgment within forty-five days was controlling and, therefore, dismissed the cause.
We have reviewed the arguments advanced by the appellants, contending error in this order and fail to find any such. We find that the trial court was eminently correct. The sureties executed the bonds, received the premiums, knew what the statutes provided and, upon receipt of the final judgments if they thought there were any errors contained therein, they should have sought relief within the forty-five day period provided for in ‘ § 903.27(2), Fla.Stat.2
Therefore, the order under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. No issue was made in the trial court nor raised here as to the propriety of the joinder of plaintiffs, and this opinion is not to be construed as approving such procedure.
. This opinion is not to be construed as either approving or disapproving the propriety of the award of interest and costs on these judgments, as we do not reach these issues in this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 372 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Section 903.27(2), Florida Statutes (1977); Resolute Insurance Company v. Brinker, 338 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
-
Armondio Ruiz & Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 385 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Sponheim, 366 So. 2d 143 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Resolute Insurance Company v. Brinker, 338 So. 2d 861 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Resolute Insurance Company v. State ex rel. Dade County, 289 So. 2d 456 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); § 903.27(2), Fla.Stat. (1977).…
-
Morffis v. State, 389 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 903.27(2), Fla.Stat. (1977); Allied Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 372 So. 2d 545 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Resolute Insurance Company v. Brinker, 338 So. 2d 861 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence