Maltie's Estate v. State, 80-1842
| Decision Date | 30 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1842,80-1842 |
| Citation | 404 So.2d 384 |
| Parties | The ESTATE OF David MALTIE; and Gilbert Surety Services and Bankers Insurance Company, and bonding agent, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James K. Pedley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Robert L. Bogen, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order denying a motion for remission of forfeiture filed pursuant to Section 903.28, Florida Statutes (1979).
David Robert Maltie was arrested March 2, 1979, and charged with a crime. On March 3, 1979, Gilbert Surety Services and Bankers Insurance Company posted a $100,000 surety bond, assuring the defendant's appearance. David Damore, Esquire, filed his appearance as counsel for Maltie on March 16, 1979.
In July, 1979, Damore filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Maltie because he was unable to locate his client and expressed doubt that Maltie would appear as required. The State thereupon moved the court to increase Maltie's bond. A hearing was scheduled for September 25, 1979, on the pending motions, but neither Maltie nor Damore appeared. Accordingly, the trial court instructed the clerk to notify the bonding company of a new hearing which he scheduled for October 1, 1979. Neither Maltie, Damore, nor the bonding company appeared on October 1st and the trial court ordered estreature and forfeiture of the bond and issuance of a capias for Maltie's arrest. On October 31, 1979, the bonding company paid the $100,000 principal amount of the bond.
This aspect of the proceeding was commenced on July 25, 1980, when appellants filed a motion for remission of the forfeiture, essentially on the ground that there was no breach of the bond in that the State had not complied with the provisions of Section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The thrust of appellants' motion was that the bonding company was not given the 72 hour notice required by the aforesaid section, nor was the notice adequate to apprise the company that the bond would be forfeited if the defendant was not present.
In pertinent part, Section 903.26 provides that:
(1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless:
(b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least 72 hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant.
Failure to furnish this notice as required by statute invalidates an order of estreature and forfeiture. Caivano v. State, 331 So.2d 331 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
The evidence adduced at the September 25, 1979, hearing most strongly indicates that the clerk mailed the written notice to the bonding company on the afternoon of Thursday, September 26, 1979, for the hearing to be held at 8:45 Monday, October 1st. Eliminating the intervening Saturday and Sunday, the notice does not comply with the time requirements of the statute.
Next, we agree with the appellants that the form of the notice is sufficiently ambiguous to confuse the company into believing that the defendant's presence at the hearing was not required. The notice was a printed form utilized for notification of defendants to be present at arraignment. Thus, it instructs the defendant to be in court at a specified time and date ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Causey
...notice of trial dates to the surety is required only in jurisdictions where a statutory command exists. E.g., Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So.2d 384 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); Russel v. State, Okla., 488 P.2d 1264 (Sup.Ct.1971); see also......
-
Mike Snapp Bail Bonds v. Orange County
...judgment.") Huie v. State, 92 So.2d 264 (Fla.1957); Chase v. Orange County, 511 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). 4. Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So.2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Ferlita v. State, 380 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 5. Ferlita v. State, 380 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). 6. See Easy ......
-
Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Putnam County
...So.2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Allied Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 415 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So.2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Schaefer v. State, 369 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bankers Fire & Casualty Company v. State, 303 So.2d 39 (Fla. ......
-
Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, s. 81-2052 and 81-2127
...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 S......