U.S. v. Gil

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and THOMAS A. CLARK; TJOFLAT
• Citation: U.S. v. Gil, 657 F.2d 712 (5th Cir. 1981)
• Decision Date: 28 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-5291,80-5291
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo A. GIL, Defendant, Cotton Belt Insurance Company, a Tennessee Corporation, Surety-Appellant. . Unit B

Page 712

657 F.2d 712

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo A. GIL, Defendant Cotton Belt Insurance Company, a Tennessee Corporation Surety-Appellant.

No. 80-5291.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Unit B

Sept. 28, 1981.

Hurley, McNulty, Stakelum & O'Connor, James J. O'Connor, New Orleans, La., Ferguson & Gettinger, P.A., Randolph Q. Ferguson, Coral Gables, Fla., for surety-appellant.

Martin R. Raskin, Sp. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Miami, Fla., Sara Criscitelli, Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the forfeiture of two bail bonds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e)(2). We find that the district court acted well within its discretion in declining to set aside the forfeiture, but that it erred in calculating the amount to be forfeited under the bonds.

I

Cotton Belt Insurance Company (Cotton Belt), a Tennessee corporation doing business in Florida, named as its agent William Panasuk, the sole owner of a Miami bonding business called Speedy Bail Bonds. It also authorized George Athans, a licensed bail bondsman employed by Panasuk, to act as its agent. Upon appointing these individuals as agents, Cotton Belt filed statements of general bond power in the district court, giving each of them a general power of attorney to write bail bonds on behalf of Cotton Belt up to $105,000 "ON ANY ONE RISK." See Record Excerpts at M; Brief for the United States at App. 3. The statements set forth several terms and conditions of the agents' authority, and emphasized in large print: "All bail bonds and recognizances must be accompanied by an individual, numbered power of attorney properly executed." Id.

An "individual, numbered power of attorney," known in the bail bonding trade as a "special power," or "executing power," authorizes an agent to write a particular bail bond and states the maximum amount for which the bond may be written. At one point Cotton Belt issued special power forms with large maximum figures to Harold Seigel, a bondsman formerly associated with Panasuk. These forms had blanks in which the name of the agent, the defendant, and other particulars of the bonds they were to accompany were to be written. When Seigel severed his association with Speedy Bail Bonds, these blank special power forms fell into Panasuk's hands. Cotton Belt was aware that the outstanding special powers had not been returned and it made some attempts to retrieve them. Panasuk, however, told Cotton Belt that the special powers had either been lost, stolen, or misplaced. Cotton Belt never reported the disappearance of the blank special powers to the district court.

In December of 1979, Cotton Belt informed all of its agents, including Panasuk and Athans, that they could not post bonds for more than $10,000 without special clearance from Cotton Belt managers. Cotton Belt did not, however, inform the courts of this internal policy.

In January of 1980, Gustavo Gil was arrested on narcotics charges. A magistrate in the Southern District of Florida set Gil's bail at $150,000. Shortly thereafter, Panasuk and Athans appeared before a federal magistrate at his home, and presented two special powers authorizing a bond not to exceed $55,000 and a bond not to exceed $105,000. Athans' name was handwritten in the blank entitled "Executing Agent" on the $105,000 power and Panasuk's name was written in the same blank on the $55,000 power. On both powers Gil's name appeared in the blank entitled "Defendant." Record, vol. I at 19-23. It is not clear when these blanks were filled in. Panasuk proceeded to write a bond for $100,000, and Athans wrote a bond for $50,000 in the magistrate's presence. Panasuk's bond for $100,000 was then attached to Athans' special power for $105,000, and Athans' bond for $50,000 was attached to Panasuk's special power for $55,000. Id. Apparently, the magistrate accepted the special powers and bonds without noticing the mix-up and without inquiring further as to the agents' authority. Gil was subsequently released.

Gil later jumped bail, and on the magistrate's recommendation, the district court issued an arrest warrant and ordered that the two bonds be forfeited. Only when Cotton Belt received two letters demanding payment of $100,000 and $50,000 did it learn that the two bonds had been written for Gil; it had not authorized its agents to execute the bonds or to use its special power forms for this defendant, nor had it received any premium, collateral or other consideration in connection with the two bonds. Cotton Belt moved to set aside the judgments of forfeiture pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e)(2), ¹ claiming, among other things, that Panasuk had exceeded his authority in posting the $150,000 bond by improperly "stacking" ² two powers of attorney. The district court denied the motion and appellant moved for a rehearing, arguing, inter alia, that the bonds were illegal and improper because the bond Panasuk signed was attached to Athans' power of attorney, and vice versa.

The district court reaffirmed its order of forfeiture, stating:

(T)he powers in question gave the apparent authority to the person utilizing those powers to post the bond in the amount in question, and if there be any limitation of that power whatsoever, the burden was upon Cottonbelt (sic) Insurance Company to notify the clerk of this Court and the Court itself, that the apparent authority of these individuals was not as they purported to be the Court is of the opinion that if there was any question about the existence of those powers and their possible utilization, particularly after the pattern and course that Mr. Panasek (sic) obviously had taken, at or about the same time as they were filed with the Court, that in fact Cottonbelt (sic) should have taken some action to prevent the same. ³

Record, vol. II at 34-35. Cotton Belt now appeals the district court's decision.

II

Cotton Belt argues that the government was not reasonable in relying on the apparent authority of Panasuk and Athans to execute the bonds and that the district court therefore should have granted its motion to set aside the forfeiture. In order to prevail, Cotton Belt must show that the district court abused its "wide discretion" in refusing to set aside the forfeiture. United States v. Hesse, 576 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir. 1978). See United States v. Gray, 568 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); United States v. Foster, 417 F.2d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1969) ("the trial court's judgment may be reversed only if it must be said that the decision was arbitrary and capricious"). "By its motion to set aside a bond forfeiture, the surety assumes the burden of proving that an injustice is done by the forfeiture." Id. See United States v. Nolan, 564 F.2d 376, 378 (10th Cir. 1977).

In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we must look to general principles of federal common law. See United States v. Miller, 539 F.2d 445, 447 n.2 (5th Cir. 1976). ⁴ Under federal law "a principal can be held liable for even fraudulent acts of its agent if the agent had apparent authority." United States v. Sanchez, 521 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 59-60, 50 L.Ed.2d 77 (1976). "Apparent authority exists whenever a principal manifests to a third person that an officer or agent may act in its behalf, and the third person in good faith believes that the authority exists. When that third person reasonably relies upon that apparent authority to his detriment, the principal is estopped to deny the authority." Clark Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Tice, 490 F.2d 834, 836 (5th Cir. 1974). See Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F.2d 483, 493 (5th Cir. 1974); Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 8 & 159 (1958).

By filing statements of general bond power for Panasuk and Athans, Cotton Belt manifested to the government that these individuals were its agents, authorized to write bonds on its behalf. These statements of general bond power notified the government that each of the agents was authorized to write bonds up to $105,000 "on any one risk." Record Excerpts at M; Brief for the United States at App. 3. Further, Cotton Belt either issued to Panasuk, or through its own neglect allowed Panasuk to obtain, the valid special power forms that he presented to the magistrate as evidence of his, and Athans', authority to write the bonds in this case. Thus, Cotton Belt did communicate to the government that Panasuk and Athans were authorized to bind it.

Cotton Belt argues, however, that the government was not reasonable in believing in the agents' apparent authority. See Sanchez, 521 F.2d at 246. For one thing, it argues, "stacking" powers, as Athans and Panasuk did here, is not customary. ⁵ Thus we must consider whether the use of two special powers, valid on their face, by two individual agents to meet the bail requirements of one defendant was so irregular as to place the magistrate on notice that the agents were acting beyond their authority.

Cotton Belt indicates that it is acceptable for agents of two different bonding companies to pool special powers to provide bail for a single defendant, see record, vol. I at 62, but argues that, for policy reasons, one bonding company would not wish for two of its agents to pool special powers. See Brief of Defendant-Surety-Appellant at 15-16. Apparently Cotton Belt feels that these policy reasons are so evident that a magistrate could not reasonably believe that a surety company would authorize such an action. ⁶ We agree with the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Eskew, 469 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1972),...