Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The primary issue in these consolidated appeals is whether a court may enter a judgment against a bail bond surety upon unpaid and undischarged forfeitures where written notices to the surety were not given within seventy-two hours of the forfeitures pursuant to Section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1979), which provides: "If there is a breach of the bond, the court shall declare the bond and any bonds or money deposited as bail forfeited and shall notify the surety agent and surety company in writing within 72 hours of said forfeiture....

...The forfeiture shall be paid within 30 days." Allied Fidelity Insurance Company was the surety on bail bonds posted to insure the appearance of defendants in four criminal cases. In each case, after due notice to Allied of a required appearance by the defendant, see § 903.26(1)(b), Fla....

...(1979), [1] the defendant failed to appear, and orders declaring the bonds forfeited were entered. Written notices advising Allied of the forfeitures were sent four to six days, or more than seventy-two hours, after forfeiture. [2] Allied contends that Section 903.26(2) is mandatory, and the failure to strictly comply with its seventy-two hour requirement prevented judgment from being entered upon the forfeitures, and, therefore, in these cases, required the trial court to vacate the judgments entered....

...206 (1906), and only a non-essential mode of proceeding is prescribed, Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116 (1848), the word "shall" is said to be advisory or directory only. Turning to the case at hand, a reading of the entirety of Chapter 903 relating to bail convinces us that the provision for notice to the surety in Section 903.26(2) is intended to accomplish the orderly and prompt conduct of the court's business and is directory only. See Schneider v. Gustafson Industries, Inc., 139 So.2d 423 (Fla. 1962); Reid v. Southern Development Co., supra . Under Section 903.26, the surety is provided with two separate and distinct notices [3] : the first is a notice to produce the defendant at a time and place certain, see Section 903.26(1)(b), note 1, supra ; the second and later notice is to formally advise the surety that it has failed in its duty to produce the defendant and that the bond is thereby forfeited, see § 903.26(2), supra. The first of these notices, as Section 903.26(1) expressly states ("......

...every case simply because of the failure to give the statutory notice of a forfeiture which has already occurred." Weaver v. State, 370 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). and conclude that a failure to comply with the seventy-two hour provision of Section 903.26(2) does not prevent the trial court from entering judgment on the forfeiture. Having so concluded, we now address Allied's argument that even if the failure to strictly comply with the post-forfeiture notice provision of Section 903.26(2) does not preclude the entry of a judgment, Allied is entitled to show — and did in fact show — that it was prejudiced when notice of the forfeiture was served upon it more than seventy-two hours after forfeiture....

...omplished immediately after the open court declaration of forfeiture. We most certainly cannot conclude from this "showing" that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the forfeiture judgments against Allied. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 903.26(1)(b) provides that the bail bond surety be given seventy-two hours notice of the defendant's scheduled appearance: "(1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: .......

...ithin thirty days of forfeiture, Weaver v. State, supra , and to thereby obtain statutory rights not available to sureties which do not timely pay the forfeited amount. Thus, a surety which pays the forfeited amount within thirty days as required by Section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1979), is granted one year from the date of forfeiture within which to seek a remission of the forfeited amount....

...uired by the plain meaning of the statute. If the intent was not to discharge a forfeiture when the bonded defendant fails to appear because he or she has been jailed or imprisoned in another state, we suggest the legislature clarify the language in section 903.26.")....

...So far as the record presented to us is concerned, no final judgment of any nature has been entered by the trial court. As will be demonstrated later, the "order for forfeiture of the bond" was clearly interlocutory and only a step in the statutory *268 bond forfeiture procedure. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...In the case before us an appeal from a final judgment would afford full, adequate and complete relief. It appears that much of the confusion that evidently has produced the complexity of the problems presented to us is due to a failure to observe cautiously the provisions of Sections 903.26 through 903.30, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., dealing with the forfeiture of bail bonds. The order for the forfeiture under Section 903.26, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is merely a preliminary step in the proceeding....

...(d) The defendant's past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings. However, any defendant who previously had willfully and knowingly failed to appear and breached a bond as specified in s. 903.26, but who had voluntarily appeared or surrendered, shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond; and any defendant who willfully and knowingly failed to appear and breached a bond as specified in s. 903.26 and who was arrested at any time following forfeiture shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond or for any form of bond which does not require a monetary undertaking or commitment equal to or greater than $2,000 or twice the value of the monetary commitment or undertaking of the original bond, whichever is greater....

...Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132 describes the procedures regarding pretrial detention. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132. [10] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(c) provides: (c) Consequences of Failure to Appear. (1) Any defendant who willfully and knowingly fails to appear and breaches a bond as specified in section 903.26, Florida Statutes, and who voluntarily appears or surrenders shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond. (2) Any defendant who willfully and knowingly fails to appear and breaches a bond as specified in section 903.26, Florida Statutes, and who is arrested at any time following forfeiture shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond or any form of bond that does not require a monetary undertaking or commitment equal to or greater than $2,000 or twi...

...59-354, c. 61-406 and c. 65-492, respectively. It is only as to category (3) aforesaid, with which we are concerned in the instant case. The provisions of the three Session laws aforesaid [1] have been brought down in the biennial compilations as F.S. §§ 903.26 to 903.36, F.S.A. inclusive. F.S. § 903.26, F.S.A....

...The only notice ever received by Ramsey was not from the Clerk of the Court but from the Sheriff by letter written July 3, 1967, advising of the date of August 11, 1967, Hemphill should be in Court at Naples; and even on the latter date the case was continued without notice to Ramsey. While § 903.26 does not specifically say how the notice shall be given, the implication is irresistible that it must be in writing because it requires the notice "to be given by the Clerk of the Court having jurisdiction of the defendant", and Court Clerks traditionally transmit notices in writing....

...udgment", and that if the judgment is not paid within sixty days the clerk shall so notify the insurance commissioner (State Treasurer), who may then take certain *186 prescribed administrative action. None of these requirements were observed. Also, § 903.26(6) provides that within sixty days after the date of forfeiture, the Court "shall direct that the forfeiture of the undertaking be discharged" if the bondsman gives "[a] satisfactory explanation of the breach of the undertaking"....

...nty Sheriff, who thereupon caused him to be produced before the Collier County Circuit Court and his criminal cases in short order finally disposed of. This process of surrendering the defendant, even after forfeiture, is affirmatively recognized by § 903.26(6) (c) and (d) as affording proper basis for a "remission of the forfeiture [to] be made to the surety"....

...e influence of an intoxicant. On November 10, 1970, the principal failed to appear in that court to answer the charges, and the appellant surety company failed to produce him. The judge of said *771 court thereupon, ordered said bond forfeited under § 903.26, Fla....

..., 1972, and this appeal ensued. Appellant presents two points for our consideration: (1) that the motion to set aside the final judgment of estreature should have been granted when no notice was given nor received by the appellant as provided for by § 903.26(1)(b) Fla....

...Stat., F.S.A.; and (2) that the earlier order vacating judgment and order of dismissal resulted in the cancelling of the bond pursuant to § 903.31, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. Our determination of the first point makes consideration of the second unnecessary. Florida Statutes, § 903.26 provides, inter alia: "(1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: * * * * * * "(b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant....

...d. 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....

...349, 4 So.2d 369 (1941); Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950); Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Resolute Insurance Company v. State, 269 So.2d 770 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Caivano v. State, 331 So.2d 331 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Construing Section 903.26(1)(b) strictly, as we are constrained to do, we hold the notice is both untimely and inadequate....

...County Bonding argued that, under the circumstances, the bond forfeiture should have been vacated. The trial court refused and County Bonding has appealed. II. The first question we must consider is whether the trial court can grant an extension of the thirty-five-day time period for payment or discharge contained in section 903.26, Florida Statutes. We conclude that the thirty-five-day period cannot be extended. A defendant's failure to appear results in forfeiture of the bond. See § 903.26(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). The surety must pay the forfeiture within thirty-five days of the date that the clerk mails notice. See id. § 903.26(2)(a),(b). The statute allows the court to discharge a forfeiture within the thirty-five-day period upon, among other things, "[s]urrender or arrest of the defendant if the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendant." Id. § 903.26(5)(c). In the present case, County Bonding obtained several extensions of the thirty-five-day deadline so that it could pursue the defendant in Jamaica. The State argues that the thirty-five-day time period in section 903.26 cannot be extended. After considering the statutory scheme as a whole, we agree with the State. Chapter 903 is clear that the forfeiture must be paid or discharged within thirty-five days. See id. §§ 903.26(2)(a),(b), 903.27(1)....

...dant if the bondsman pays the forfeiture prior to the entry of final judgment." Thomas W. Logue & William X. Candela, Florida Law of Bail Bond Estreature, Fla. B.J., Feb. 1989, at 44, 45 (footnote omitted). In sum, the thirty-five-day time period of section 903.26 cannot be extended....

...furnished the clerk. As might be expected, the letter was never received by Bailey. When the surety failed to produce the defendant as required by the notice, the bail was estreated and a capias issued for the defendant's re-arrest. Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b), F.S.A., mandates that the clerk of the court give a surety notice of a defendant's required appearance except under stated conditions....

...n to be informed must receive actual notice before it will be effective." Because of the familiar rule that statutes providing for forfeitures are strictly construed, Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950), we must presume that in the enactment of Section 903.26(1) (b), supra, the Legislature intended the highest form of notice to be afforded a bondsman....

...648.42, F.S.A., which requires a bondsman to register annually with the sheriff or the circuit court clerk, but note that registration is not made a vehicle for notification. We are likewise aware of the obiter dictum expressed in Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla.App.2d 1969), that notice under F.S. 903.26(1) (b), F.S.A., be in writing....

...t receive notice of the date of the defendant's hearing the trial court erred in entering the judgment. We agree and reverse. The law is well settled that the surety bail bondsman must receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes; Resolute Insurance Company v....

..., the failure of a clerk's office to give the requisite statutory notice afforded the surety of a bail bond in producing a defendant to answer charges set forth in the bond before estreature and the entry of judgment of forfeiture. Florida Statutes, Section 903.26, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: * * * * * * (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two [72] hours' notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant....

...otified. Dolly located the defendant in a New Jersey jail or prison where he was incarcerated and had been incarcerated on the date of his arraignment. Subject to the payment of transportation costs, Dolly moved for discharge of the forfeiture under section 903.26(5), Florida Statutes (1999). Section 903.26(5), as amended in 1999, provides in part that "[t]he court shall discharge a forfeiture within 60 days upon: ......

...ts similar to this case. Pinellas Co. v. Robertson, 490 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In the proceeding below, the State convinced the trial judge that this court's decision in Pinellas was controlling, in part arguing that the failure to reference section 903.26 in the Pinellas opinion made forfeiture discharge a question of case law *74 rather than statutory interpretation....

...uired by the plain meaning of the statute. If the intent was not to discharge a forfeiture when the bonded defendant fails to appear because he or she has been jailed or imprisoned in another state, we suggest the legislature clarify the language in section 903.26....

...inal judgment of forfeiture of an appearance bond on which they were obligated as surety. The question presented is whether an order vacating forfeiture for failure to give the surety timely notice of when the defendant had to appear, as required by section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), operated as a matter of law, by virtue of section 903.31, to cancel the bond and release the surety from further obligation thereon, notwithstanding an express reservation in the order that the surety was not relieved of liability pursuant to the bond....

...referred to as the first order of forfeiture). Shortly thereafter, the surety moved to vacate and set aside this order on several grounds: that the surety did not receive timely notice that the defendant was to appear January 5, 1977, as required by section 903.26(1)(b); that it did not receive notice of the March 1980 hearing on forfeiture of the bond; and that it did not receive a copy of the order of forfeiture until sixteen days after its entry....

...rder of forfeiture. On June 15, 1983, that motion was denied and the forfeiture was reduced to final judgment against Wiley and the surety. On June 27, 1983, the surety moved to vacate the final judgment on grounds that it was not in accordance with section 903.26, et seq., Florida Statutes (1981), and that the surety had been prejudiced by the six and one-half years delay between the date of the original bond and the entry of final judgment....

...de the task of locating defendant Wiley more difficult. This motion for reconsideration was also denied after the surety had perfected this appeal. *919 The applicable statute in effect in January 1977, when the defendant first failed to appear, was section 903.26, Florida Statutes (1975), which states: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: * * * * * * (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least seventy-two hours notice, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, before the time of the required appearance of the defendant......

...e conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond cancelled. Conviction or acquittal of the defendant will satisfy a bond unless the court otherwise provides in the judgment. In 1977, section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1977), was amended by adding the requirement that, when declaring a bond forfeited, the court also "shall notify the surety agent and surety company in writing within seventy-two hours of said forfeiture." This st...

...granted that motion with the proviso continuing the surety's liability on the bond. [1] Appellants argue that the trial court properly vacated the first order of forfeiture because the surety had not been given notice of the hearing, as required by section 903.26(1)(b), but that the trial court erred in ordering that the surety remain liable on the bond rather than cancelling the bond....

...3d DCA 1972) [hereinafter referred to as Resolute I ], and Bailey v. State, 282 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). In those cases, the appellate court reversed the forfeiture judgments because each was entered without the surety having previously been given notice that defendant should appear, as required by section 903.26(1)(b), and both opinions directed that the bonds be cancelled. Appellants contend *920 that notice under section 903.26(1)(b) is a condition precedent to the entry of forfeiture, whereas the failure to give notice of estreature, required by section 903.26(2) is not, citing Allied Fidelity Insurance Co....

...thus, required the trial court to cancel the bond in this case. In response, the state concedes that the trial court correctly ordered the original forfeiture vacated and set aside for failure to give the surety the required notice of hearing under section 903.26(1)(b)....

...atus, "as if the bail bond had never been forfeited nor the final judgment entered thereon," and that upon failure to comply thereafter with the terms of the bond a second order of forfeiture may be entered. 289 So.2d at 456. No lack of notice under section 903.26(1)(b) was involved, and the court did not discuss the application or effect of section 903.31....

...2d DCA 1979), the Second District had occasion to examine the effect of section 903.31 with respect to an order vacating a forfeiture for failure to notify the surety in writing within seventy-two hours after the entry of forfeiture, as required by section 903.26(2)....

...bond should remain in full force and effect, and set another time for the defendant's appearance. Thereafter, the defendant failed to appear at the second hearing and the bond was again forfeited and the required statutory notice to the surety under section 903.26(2) was given. On appeal, the surety argued that the first order setting aside forfeiture required that the bond be cancelled under section 903.31, but the Second District disagreed. Since the notice required by section 903.26(1)(b) had been timely given, Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), Bailey v. State, supra , and Resolute I, supra, were expressly distinguished on the ground that these cases "involved situations in which the bondsman had not been given written notice under section 903.26(1) of when the defendant was required to appear." Id., at 1238. Choosing to follow Resolute II, the court in Weaver concluded: Despite the absence of specific statutory authority, we hold that the court could properly set aside the forfeiture for failure to comply with section 903.26(2) without cancelling the bond when the bondsman failed to show prejudice....

...When [defendant] failed to heed the new order to appear, the court properly caused the bond to be forfeited once again. 370 So.2d at 1238. The state urges that the rationale of Resolute II controls here even though this case involves failure to give notice under section 903.26(1)(b), rather than section 903.26(2). [2] Relying on Caivano v. State, 331 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), wherein the notice to the surety was held insufficient to comply with section 903.26(1)(b) and the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the forfeiture, the state emphasizes the directive in the opinion that "said bond shall remain in effect." 331 So.2d at 334....

...his appearance at the scheduled time and excused the entry of forfeiture. That ruling was held not to affect the continued validity of the bond. Weaver and Allied Fidelity I involved failure to give notice to the surety after forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26(2). That notice requirement is "intended to accomplish the orderly and prompt conduct of the court's business and is directory only." Therefore, it is substantially different in legal effect from the notice of time for appearance required by section 903.26(1)(b). Allied Fidelity I, supra, at 111. This substantial difference is aptly described in that case: Under Section 903.26, the surety is provided with two separate and distinct notices: the first is a notice to produce the defendant at a time and place certain, see Section 903.26(1)(b), note 1, supra ; the second and later notice is to formally advise the surety that it has failed in its duty to produce the defendant and that the bond is thereby forfeited, see § 903.26(2), supra. The first of these notices, as Section 903.26(1) expressly states ("....

...*922 case simply because of the failure to give the statutory notice of a forfeiture which has already occurred." Weaver v. State, 370 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). and conclude that a failure to comply with the seventy-two hour provision of Section 903.26(2) does not prevent the trial court from entering judgment on the forfeiture....

...on the same charges, constitutes a substantial breach of the surety contract which discharges the surety. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. v. State, supra, at 308-309. The question becomes, then, whether failure to give the surety notice pursuant to section 903.26(1)(b) constitutes a sufficient reason for relieving the surety of its obligation to guarantee the defendant's appearance at subsequent court proceedings. We are persuaded that whether it does or does not in a given case should be determined by the trial court in the exercise of sound discretion. The state's failure to comply with section 903.26(1)(b) need not necessarily invalidate the bonding agreement between the state and the surety....

...e surety's custody of the accused and does not necessarily affect the surety's ability to produce the defendant at subsequent proceedings pursuant to reasonable notice to do so. An order vacating or setting aside a forfeiture entered in violation of section 903.26(1)(b) is usually intended to restore the parties to the same position they were in before the forfeiture was improvidently entered and subjects the surety to no higher duty or undertaking than that contemplated in the original agreement....

...of any further responsibility for guaranteeing the defendant's appearance. We do not construe the phrase "forfeiture discharged or remitted" in section 903.31 to encompass an order vacating and setting *923 aside a forfeiture for noncompliance with section 903.26(1)(b) unless the trial court specifically determines to relieve the surety or the defendant of further liability on the bond....

...ischarge or remission requiring cancellation of the bond under section 903.31. We recognize, however, that a surety may be entitled to discharge on its bond if prejudiced by the state's conduct in failing to comply with the statutory requirements in section 903.26....

...We are, therefore, unwilling to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the forfeiture judgment on the ground of prejudice to the surety. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. NOTES [1] In chapter 82-175, Laws of Florida, the legislature made extensive revisions to sections 903.26, 903.27, 903.28, and other sections of chapter 903, Florida Statutes, which became effective October 1, 1982, and neither party has referred to these amendments. Since these changes do not materially affect our decision in this case, we need not determine if they should be applicable. [2] Under section 903.26, the surety is provided with two separate and distinct notices: The first is a notice to produce the defendant at a time and place certain; the second, where the surety fails to pay the forfeiture within thirty days and a final judgmen...

...Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. COBB, Judge. This is an appeal from a trial court order denying a motion to set aside a bond estreature. It requires interpretation of the 1977 amendment to § 903.26(2), which added the following italicized words: If there is a breach of the bond, the court shall declare the bond and any bonds or money deposited as bail forfeited and shall notify the surety agent and surety company in writing within 72 hours of said forfeiture. The forfeiture shall be paid within 30 days. Subsection (1)(b) of § 903.26 provides that a bail bond shall not be forfeited in the absence of 72 hour advance notice to the surety of a court date....

...At the very least, there should be a showing of prejudice made by the *541 bondsman or surety before the trial court to avoid forfeiture. Weaver v. State, 370 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Whether or not this court would follow the stringent interpretation of the pre-forfeiture notice requirement of § 903.26(1)(b) as expressed in Schaefer and Bailey need not be decided at this time....

...(5) Information stated in, or offered in connection with, any order entered pursuant to this rule need not strictly conform to the rules of evidence. (c) Consequences of Failure to Appear. (1) Any defendant who willfully and knowingly fails to appear and breaches a bond as specified in section 903.26, Florida Statutes, and who voluntarily appears or surrenders shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond. (2) Any defendant who willfully and knowingly fails to appear and breaches a bond as specified in section 903.26, Florida Statutes, and who is arrested at any time following forfeiture shall not be eligible for a recognizance bond or any form of bond that does not require a monetary undertaking or commitment equal to or greater than $2,000 or twi...

...Steven Carta of Smith & Carta, Fort Myers, for appellant. James G. Yaeger, County Atty., Fort Myers, for appellee. GRIMES, Chief Judge. This appeal involves the question of whether the court could decline to cancel a *1237 bail bond after having set aside a prior forfeiture for failure to comply with Section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...When Zul failed to appear at the appointed time the court ordered the bond forfeited. Appellant later filed a motion to set aside or remit forfeiture on the ground that he had not been notified in writing within seventy-two hours after the forfeiture pursuant to Section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...After Zul once again failed to appear as directed, the court declared a second forfeiture of the bond. This time written notice of the nonappearance and forfeiture was timely mailed to appellant and his surety company. The pertinent statutes which must be considered are set forth below: 903.26 Forfeiture of the bond; when and how directed; discharge; how and when made; effect of payment....

...ides in the judgment. Appellant argues that the order setting aside the first forfeiture was equivalent to a discharge or remission of the forfeiture which required the bond to be canceled under Section 903.31. We cannot agree. Surely one purpose of Section 903.26(2) is to insure that the bondsman and the surety company will receive prompt notice of a bond forfeiture so that they may pay the bond in a timely fashion....

...Here appellant made no showing that he was prejudiced by the failure to receive the written notice of the forfeiture. The cases cited by appellant in which bonds have been cancelled upon a discharge *1238 of a forfeiture all involved situations in which the bondsman had not been given written notice under Section 903.26(1) of when the defendant was required to appear....

...Our sister court rejected the contention that the bond had been cancelled as a result of the order which set aside the first forfeiture. Despite the absence of specific statutory authority, we hold that the court could properly set aside the forfeiture for failure to comply with Section 903.26(2) without cancelling the bond when the bondsman failed to show prejudice....

...and until the bond is forfeited by the court. To the extent that Plaintiff became liable for a "debt," it was not as a result of ABIC's extension of a line of credit to Plaintiff, but arose by court order when the bond was breached. See Fla.Stat. § 903.26. Plaintiff has pointed us to no case in which an analogous transaction has been held to constitute the extension of credit, and we are aware of none....

...The salient point posed by this appeal is whether a bond may be estreated where there is no proof that the bondsman or surety was notified at least seventy-two hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, prior to the time that defendant-principal was to appear as required by Florida Statute 903.26(1) (b)....

...In addition, we note that as the letter is dated April 24, 1973, and apparently was deposited in the U.S. Mail by the Sheriff of Wakulla County to be delivered to appellant's agent in Marianna, Florida, it is doubtful that appellant received the requisite seventy-two hour notice as required by Florida Statute 903.26(1)(b). This Court has previously held that Florida Statute 903.26(1)(b) requires that the surety-bail bondsman receive actual notice of the required appearance of a defendant, Bailey v....

...Al Estes Bonding acted as agent for a surety to post an appearance bond for Mr. Clark, and Mr. Clark was released. Although our record is limited, it is undisputed that Mr. Clark did not appear for trial on February 19, 2002. As a result, a notice of surety bond estreature was filed pursuant to section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...at Mr. Clark was now in federal custody and subject to detainer. A hearing was held on the motion on May 30, 2002. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. That same day, Al Estes Bonding paid the $15,000 bond pursuant to section 903.26 in order to *256 avoid the entry of a judgment against the surety under section 903.27, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...The Fifth District reasoned that "all steps leading up to the entry of a judgment of forfeiture of a bail bond are interlocutory in nature" and thus nonappealable. Id. at 1102. We are troubled by this reasoning because if the surety pays its money to the clerk of court pursuant to section 903.26, no final judgment will be entered under section 903.27....

...Hagman, 467 So.2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding order denying remission was appealable final order and noting that court had dismissed prior "appeal" of motion to vacate estreature without prejudice to filing motion for remission). Although, as Chase noted, section 903.26(7) provides that "the payment by a surety of a forfeiture under the provisions of this law shall have the same effect on the bond as payment of a judgment," this section does not state that payment is equivalent to the entry of a judgment....

...We are hesitant to require such action as a prerequisite for appellate review because a judgment against the surety can have other consequences for the bail bondsman. See § 903.27, Fla. Stat. (2002). Accordingly, we conclude that an order denying a motion to set aside an estreature under section 903.26 may be reviewed by certiorari if the bond has been paid; the bail bondsman is not forced to allow the issue to go to judgment against the surety under section 903.27 prior to seeking review....

...*257 Having determined that we can review this matter, we further conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion. There is no question that the appearance bond was breached when Mr. Clark failed to appear. Although bail bonds have a long common law history, the grounds for discharge are now purely statutory. See § 903.26(6)....

...Any relief that the bail bondsmen may be entitled to in this situation must come from the legislature. Upon review of this order as a petition for writ of certiorari, we deny the petition. FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The statute actually uses the term "forfeiture" in this context. See § 903.26(1), Fla....

...State, 404 So.2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the bondsman appealed from an order denying a motion for remission of forfeiture pursuant to section 903.28, Florida Statutes. In that case, the bondsman paid the forfeiture. This has the same effect as a judgment. See § 903.26(7), Fla....

...See County of Volusia v. Audet, 682 So.2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We are concerned that the procedures followed in this case did not comport with the statutory scheme requiring that a forfeiture "be paid within 60 days of the date the notice was mailed." § 903.26(2)(a)....

...Bond for each was set at $25,000. C.E. Parrish General Agency, Inc., the bondsman, and Continental posted each bond. Morrison and Wilson were released from custody. Subsequent to their release, Morrison and Wilson failed to appear at their scheduled trial. In accord with section 903.26(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the bonds were forfeited....

...he appearance of the accused whenever required by the court." Bankston v. State, 279 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (citations omitted). Failure of the accused to appear at the time, date and place required shall result in forfeiture of the bond. § 903.26(2)(b), Fla....

...y all expenses. In the trial court proceedings, the surety argued that, under the circumstances, the bond forfeiture should be vacated. The trial court refused. On appeal, the Third District reversed the trial court's order, holding that pursuant to section 903.26(2)(b), the trial court cannot extend the thirty-five day period in which the surety is required to pay the *840 forfeiture....

...he State and a defendant, with the State represented by the State Attorney. Somewhere along the way a metamorphosis occurs. By the time the matter is decided on appeal, the county (or municipality), as the beneficiary of the forfeited bond proceeds (§ 903.26(3)(a) and (b), Fla....

...When a defendant is released on bail, he is placed in the custody of the bondsman. 10 Appleman Insurance Law & Practice § 6092 (1943). By statute, the clerk of the court must give notice to the bondsman or surety of the hearing at which the defendant is to appear. § 903.26(1)(b), Fla....

...The trial court correctly issued the "no bond" capias for the defendant when he failed to appear for the November hearing. While the original trial court initially erred in estreating the bond, it corrected that error when it set aside the estreature on January 8, 2002, due to lack of proper notice. See § 903.26(1)(b), Fla....

...agreements, Joseph pled guilty, whereupon the court entered a finding of guilt with adjudication withheld, ordered a presentence investigation, and set a sentencing date. On the scheduled sentencing date, Joseph failed to appear. In accordance with section 903.26, Florida Statutes (1991), Polakoff was notified that the surety bonds had been forfeited and payment was due within thirty-five days....

...(Snapp) appeals from the circuit court's denial of its motion to set aside a forfeiture judgment entered by the Clerk of Court in Orange County, Florida. At the hearing on the motion below, the state attorney representing Orange County stipulated that all of the conditions set forth in section 903.26(5) and (8) had occurred....

...However, he asserted that because paper work (a receipt or letter, etc.) had not been placed in the file acknowledging costs of transportation paid by Snapp, the Clerk of Court acted properly in failing to discharge the bond, and in entering a forfeiture judgment against Snapp. We reverse. Section 903.26(5)(c), Florida Statutes, provides: The court shall discharge a forfeiture within 60 days upon: (c) Surrender or arrest of the defendant if the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendant....

...If the forfeiture has been before discharge, the court shall direct remission of the forfeiture. The court shall condition a discharge or remission on the payment of costs and the expenses incurred by an official in returning the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court. Section 903.26(8) provides: If a defendant is arrested and returned to the county of jurisdiction of the court prior to judgment, the clerk, upon affirmation by the sheriff or the correctional officer, shall, without further order of the court, discharge the forfeiture of the bond....

...Girgenti testified, and the State Attorney conceded at the hearing below, that Snapp issued a check to the Orange County Sheriff for $37.50 to cover the cost of transporting Booher to Orange County, and that the check was delivered and paid to the Sheriff "timely," pursuant to the requirements of section 903.26....

...On September 30, 2004, the Clerk entered a judgment of forfeiture against Snapp. On October 11, 2004, Snapp filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture judgment, arguing that the judgment had been entered by the Clerk by mistake or error. The State Attorney argued, in return, that section 903.26 had not been complied with because Snapp failed to file a Sheriff's receipt with the clerk, and thus evidence of payment of the transport cost was absent from the file....

...judgment or order. [3] Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the first step that occurred in this case. The first step was taken when the clerk entered a forfeiture judgment against Snapp, or failed to direct remission of the forfeiture. Pursuant to section 903.26(5)(c), if the judgment was rendered hours or minutes before Booher was returned to Orange County, Snapp was entitled to have the court direct remission of the forfeiture. Well within the 60-day period mandated by section 903.26(5)(c), Booher had been returned to the jurisdiction of Orange County, the costs of his transport had been paid by the bonding company, and the slight delay in his return had not thwarted his proper prosecution....

...796 (1939)(counsel's stipulation binding on parties); Lockheed Space Operations v. Pham, 600 So.2d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Although it is unclear which provision of the statute is controlling in this case— section 903.26(5)(c) or 903.26(8)—Snapp *92 was entitled to relief under either one....

...[4] They require that all mandates of the forfeiture statutes be met meticulously. [5] Nor do the courts permit additional conditions or provisions to be added onto the statutes by court rulings or local rules. [6] In this case, the circuit court's ruling that an additional condition of section 903.26, that the bonding company must have obtained a written receipt or filed certain paper work with the Clerk in order to obtain relief mandated by that statute, is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. The result follows that the forfeiture judgment rendered below was void and contrary to law. [7] If a clerk acts prematurely, the judgment entered is not merely voidable. [8] Failure to have granted relief specified by section 903.26 to the bonding company caused it to have to pay the forfeited bond under section 903.27, to avoid dire consequences to its business operations....

...Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, 845 So.2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Schmidt v. Osceola County, 517 So.2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Chase v. Orange County, 511 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 431 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). [2] See Huie v. State, 92 So.2d 264 (Fla.1957). [3] See § 903.26(7), Fla....

...Shortly thereafter, the Surety's agent paid the $85,000 bond amount to satisfy the estreatures. The bonds were discharged and returned to the Surety. The Surety filed a motion to vacate the bond estreatures and for remission of the bonds. The criminal division judge found that the notice requirements of section 903.26, Florida Statutes, had not been satisfied, and granted the Surety's motion in an order ("the April 28th order"), stating: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Surety's Motion is GRANTED. This Court finds that the mandates of Florida Statute 903.26 were not properly met by this Court's order of December 3, 1999....

...custody of the surety, and any interference by the state with the surety's right to control of the accused, such as the accused's rearrest on the same charges, constitutes a substantial breach of the surety contract which discharges the surety." Id. Section 903.26 provides: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: *215 (a) The information, indictment, or affidavit was filed within 6 months from the date of arrest, and (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least 72 hours' notice, exclus...

...The notice requirements are a strict prerequisite to the forfeiture of the bond." Amer. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Camacho, 727 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citations omitted). If the notice requirements are not met, the order of estreature and forfeiture is invalid. Id. The state's failure to comply with section 903.26(1)(b) need not necessarily invalidate the bonding agreement between the state and the surety....

...e surety's custody of the accused and does not necessarily affect the surety's ability to produce the defendant at subsequent proceedings pursuant to reasonable notice to do so. An order vacating or setting aside a forfeiture entered in violation of section 903.26(1)(b) is usually intended to restore the parties to the same position they were in before the forfeiture was improvidently entered and subjects the surety to no higher duty or undertaking than that contemplated in the original agreement....

...ieved of any further responsibility for guaranteeing the defendant's appearance. We do not construe the phrase "forfeiture discharged or remitted" in section 903.31 to encompass an order vacating and setting aside a forfeiture for noncompliance with section 903.26(1)(b) unless the trial court specifically determines to relieve the surety or the defendant of further liability on the bond....

...The surety moved to set aside or stay the judgment, which motion was denied. This appeal ensued. We are of the opinion that the judgment was erroneously entered and that it should have been set aside for two reasons. First, the clerk of court failed to give the surety the required seventy-two (72) hours notice pursuant to section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Second, the form of the notice sent was defective and ambiguous. It did not state the nature of the hearing; that the defendant's presence was required; or that the failure of defendant to appear would result in the estreature of the surety bond. See § 903.26(1)(b), Fla....

court more than 65 days after the forfeiture. § 903.26(5), Fla. Stat. (1997); County Bonding Agency v

...ther property. On April 13, 1971 Bates failed to appear in that court to answer the charges and the appellant surety company failed to produce him. Upon motion of the state attorney, the trial judge ordered said bond forfeited pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 903.26, F.S.A....

...It is a concept that specifically relates to pretrial release and bond forfeiture under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(c), which imposes consequences for a defendant who willfully and knowingly “fails to appear” in breach of a bond as specified in section 903.26, Florida Statutes (2012). Section 903.26(2)(b) provides in pertinent part that: Failure of the defendant to appear at the time, date, and place of required appearance shall result in forfeiture of the bond.......

...een minutes late to a *555 hearing), the circuit court in this case acted within its lawful authority when it revoked Hutchinson’s pretrial release, forfeited his bond, and issued a capias when he did not timely appear at the August 5 hearing. See § 903.26(2)(b), (2)(c). Ultimately, Hutchinson’s bond was reinstated, which is appropriate “if the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendant.” § 903.26(5)(c). Unlike the pretrial release and bond provisions of rule 3.131 and section 903.26, the speedy trial rule does not address a failure to appear at a specified time....

...Resolute Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment denying its motion seeking to vacate certain bond estreatures. Resolute Insurance Company alleged that certain judgments entered pursuant to bond estreatures were void ab initio by reason of city officials failing to comply with the "bail bond law". Florida Statute 903.26 (1969), F.S.A., [1] provides, inter alia: "(1) Before a bail undertaking is forfeited it shall be known that (a) The information or indictment was filed within six months from the date of arrest, and in addition, (b) The bondsman or surety was...

...WIGGINTON, Associate Judge, and DREW (Ret.) Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Chapter 903 of the Florida Statutes (1971), F.S.A., is substantively the same as Chapter 903 of the 1969 edition of the Florida Statutes. [2] Capitol Indemnity Ins. Co. v. State, 86 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1956) [3] Florida Statute 903.26(6) (1969), F.S.A....

...[1] The sole question on appeal is whether Polk County can charge bail bondsmen a predetermined flat fee as a condition of setting aside a bond forfeiture to cover the "payment of costs and the expenses incurred in returning the defendant to the county of jurisdiction." § 903.26(8), Fla....

...Each defendant was rearrested within sixty days of the forfeiture of his or her bond. After the arrests and within sixty days of the bond forfeitures, Easy filed a notification of each defendant's arrest and a request for the clerk to set aside the bond forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26(8), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...rage costs presented by the County was legally sufficient and established that the predetermined flat fees were "fair and reasonable, and not ... arbitrary." It is this ruling that Easy challenges in this appeal. Easy and the County agree that under section 903.26(8) a bail bondsman is responsible for the payment of the costs and expenses incurred in returning the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court after a bond has been forfeited; however, they have two disputes over the application of this statute....

...The second concerns the evidentiary support required in order to impose costs in a specific case. We address each of these disputes in turn. SCOPE OF COSTS. Chapter 903, Florida Statutes, governs all aspects of bail in criminal cases, including the procedures for forfeiting bonds and discharging bond forfeitures. Section 903.26(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), requires the court to condition the discharge or remission of a bond forfeiture on "the payment of costs and the expenses incurred by an official in returning the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court." Similarly, section 903.26(8) prohibits the clerk from discharging a forfeiture prior to judgment unless the bail bondsman has paid "the costs and expenses incurred in returning the defendant to the county of jurisdiction." Further, section 903.28(2), Florida St...

...must pay the "transportation cost of returning the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court." The County argues that the use of the specific phrase "transportation cost" in section 903.21(3) and the absence of the word "transportation" in sections 903.26 and 903.28 means that the legislature did not intend to limit the costs allowed by sections 903.26 and 903.28 to simply mileage....

...Rather, we believe that the absence of the word "transportation" simply allows the sheriff's office to collect all costs incurred in returning the defendant from the county of arrest to the county holding the arrest warrant. The legislative history of the 1999 amendments to chapter 903, which included the addition of section 903.26(8), supports this interpretation....

...court or whether the County can rely on an average figure calculated for all defendants. As to this dispute, both the statute itself and case law applying it clearly require the County to prove the actual costs incurred for each specific defendant. Section 903.26(8) states: If the defendant is arrested and returned to the county of jurisdiction of the court prior to judgment, the clerk, upon affirmation by the sheriff or the chief correctional officer, shall, without further order of the court, discharge the forfeiture of the bond....

...On the cases arising in county court, the trial court certified the issue presented as being one of great public importance. This court accepted review of the cases arising in county court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A). [2] Section 903.26(8), Florida Statutes (1999), states: If the defendant is arrested and returned to the county of jurisdiction of the court prior to judgment, the clerk, upon affirmation by the sheriff or the chief correctional officer, shall, without further order of the court, discharge the forfeiture of the bond....

...that the dismissal of the earlier "appeal" was without prejudice to move for an order of remission in the trial court. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. v. Hagman, 448 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The merits of this appeal require a construction of section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: 903.26....

...rs before that proceeding, although it was established in open court at a proceeding that required the defendant's presence. Appellants contend that their position is supported by Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), which stated: F.S. § 903.26, F.S.A....

...The only notice ever received by Ramsey was not from the Clerk of the Court but from the Sheriff by letter written July 3, 1967, advising of [sic] the date of August 11, 1967, [the defendant] should be in Court at Naples; and even on the latter date the case was continued without notice to Ramsey. While § 903.26 does not specifically say how the notice shall be given, the implication is irresistible that it must be in writing because it requires the notice "to be given by the Clerk of the Court having jurisdiction of the defendant", and Court Clerks traditionally transmit notices in writing....

...tory 72-hour notice. We cannot see a difference between a defendant returning in 48 hours for the third day of a trial which has begun and a defendant who must return in 48 hours to begin his trial. Accordingly, we hold that the notice provisions of section 903.26(1)(b) do not apply to continuances of less than 72 hours....

...As a result of that stop, Cardoza was arrested and transported to the Turner Guilford Knight Pre-Trial Detention Center. The next day, August 7, Cardoza pled guilty to the charge pertaining to the bond. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced Cardoza to probation. The case was then closed. Contrary to section 903.26(8), Florida Statutes (2009), however, the Clerk did not discharge the forfeiture of the bond....

...tions precedent to the exercise of such authority must exist in order to legalize its exercise. Overholser, 383 So.2d at 954 . Here, the statutory condition to the exercise of the Clerk’s authority to send the forfeiture to judgment did not exist. Section 903.26(8) provides, in pertinent part: If the defendant is arrested and returned to the county of jurisdiction of the court prior to judgment, the clerk, upon affirmation by the sheriff or the chief correctional officer, shall, without further order of the court, discharge the forfeiture of the bond. However, if the surety agent fails to pay the costs and expenses incurred in returning the defendant to the county of jurisdiction, the clerk shall not discharge the forfeiture of the bond. Pursuant to section 903.26(8), therefore, the Clerk was required “without further order of the court [to] discharge the forfeiture of the bond” if the following acts occurred: (1) the defendant’s arrest and return to the county of jurisdiction of the court...

...ed to deposit the judgment amount in escrow before the trial court could vacate the judgment. In essence, the Appellants have been penalized for two errors committed by the Clerk: (1) the initial error in failing to discharge the bond as required by section 903.26(8); and (2) the subsequent error in sending the forfeiture of the bond to final judgment....

...nt and return him to the custody of the applicable county jail or institution, within one year of the bond forfeiture. In 1982, this statute was substantially revised. Portions of the 1970 statute dealing with discharge of a forfeiture were moved to section 903.26....

...remission under section 903.28 based on the time he or she was arrested in another jurisdiction does not comport with a policy of encouraging the expeditious apprehension or surrender of an absconding defendant and bringing him or her "to justice." Section 903.26(5) "Forfeiture of the Bond; ..." deals with conditions under which a bond forfeiture can be discharged....

...red appearance the defendant was adjudicated insane and confined in an institution or hospital or was confined in a jail or prison permits a discharge. [10] This releases of the surety for situations involving "impossibility of performance." *18 But section 903.26(5) also contains a provision similar to those in 903.28: (5) The court shall discharge a forfeiture within 60 days upon: * * * (c) Surrender or arrest of the defendant if the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendant....

...The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant Mann and Severson Bail Bonds' motion for remission. The surety, Mann and Severson Bail Bonds, bonded out the defendant who subsequently failed to appear for trial. Because there was a breach of the bond, the court declared the bond forfeited. § 903.26(2)(a), Fla....

...minal Procedure 3.030(b) because defendant refused to provide the arresting and booking officers with a valid address where he could be reached. Defendant did not appear at his arraignment. The trial court issued an Order Estreating Bond pursuant to section 903.26(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...filed Surety's Motion to Discharge Bond Forfeiture arguing that the applicable notice provisions were not strictly complied with and therefore the bond forfeiture should be discharged. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion and this appeal ensued. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes, directs the court's conduct with regard to bond forfeitures. Section 903.26 states in relevant part: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: (a) The information, indictment, or affidavit was filed within 6 months from the date of arrest, and (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least 72 hours' noti...

...t in forfeiture of the bond. Such forfeiture shall be automatically entered by the clerk upon such failure to appear, and the clerk shall follow the procedures outlined in paragraph (a). Sureties allege that the notice of court date sent pursuant to section 903.26(1)(b) was not sufficient based on this court's *232 previous decision in Southland Ins....

...In Southland, this court held that a judgment entered against a surety due to a defendant's failure to appear should be set aside for two reasons. Id. at 1331. The first reason was that the clerk of court failed to give the surety the required seventy-two hour notice pursuant to section 903.26(1)(b)....

COBB, Judge. The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court properly forfeited a defendant’s appearance bond where no advance notice was given to the bondsman to produce the defendant. The applicable statutory provision is section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), which specifically states that a bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: The clerk of the 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....

...89-146 and during the time of the presen-tence investigation. Failure to appear for pretrial proceedings in Case Numbers 89-269 and 89-270 were also cited as grounds for forfeiture. This reason would normally suffice if the notice requirement had been met. The notice requirements of 903.26(l)(b) are a strict prerequisite to a bond forfeiture....

...d estrea *1245 ture must be reversed. See State v. Saiz, 547 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). 1 REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . While failure to provide notice pursuant to section 903.26(l)(b) does entitle a surety to have a bond forfeiture vacated, it does not entitle the surety to have the bond discharged unless the surety proves by competent evidence that it was prejudiced by the state’s failure to comply....

...te, time, and place for their arraignment. The notice directed Appellant and the defendants to "Please govern [themselves] accordingly." The defendants did not appear for their arraignment, and the court subsequently forfeited their bond pursuant to section 903.26, Florida Statutes (2005). Appellant paid the bond estreature, but later moved to set it aside, arguing that the notice it received did not comply with the legal requirements for notice. The court denied Appellant's motion. Section 903.26, Florida Statutes (2005), states: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: (a) The information, indictment, or affidavit was filed within 6 months from the date of arrest, and (b) The clerk of court gave the surety at least 72 ho...

...hall follow the procedures outlined in paragraph (a). In Southland, the Fourth District reversed a motion to set aside a bond estreature for two reasons: First, the clerk of court failed to give the surety the required 72-hour notice, as required in section 903.26; second, it relied on section 903.26 in determining that the notice received by the surety was defective and ambiguous because it did not state the nature of the hearing, that the defendant's presence was required, or that his failure to appear would result in estreature of the bond. Id. at 1331-32. In Universal, the Fourth District further explained its holding in Southland. It acknowledged that section 903.26 does not contain any specific requirements for the notice to the surety; however, it restated its prior holding that *585 the notice requirements specified in Southland are a strict prerequisite to forfeiture of a bond....

...; it is not sufficient to make court calendars available to all the sureties in the county). Generally, the plain meaning of a statute is controlling. Jackson County Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, 835 So.2d 318, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We do not interpret section 903.26 to find that notice is defective as a matter of law when it fails to specifically identify the type of proceeding, that a defendant's presence is required, and that his or her failure to appear will result in an estreature....

...Allied Fidelity Insurance Company (Surety) appeals from a final order denying its motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of forfeiture of a surety bail bond. In so doing, the Surety presents the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the statutory notice required by Section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), was given to Allied Fidelity prior to the entry of the judgment of forfeiture; and (2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant *933 the relief requested in Allied Fidelity's motion to vacate and set aside judgment....

...This was followed by a motion to vacate on 24 January 1986 and a second amended motion to vacate and set aside judgment on 12 March. The essential thrust of the motion was the failure of the clerk of the county court to provide 72-hours notice pursuant to Section 903.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes, of the defendant's required appearance on 20 August....

...as without jurisdiction to grant any effective relief. The court so ruled relying on Section 903.27(5), Florida Statutes, which proscribes a 45-day time limit for the filing of motions to stay or to set aside a judgment of forfeiture. The portion of Section 903.26, Florida Statutes, pertinent to this case provides as follows: (1) A bail bond shall not be forfeited unless: (a) The information, indictment, or affidavit was filed within 6 months from the date of arrest, and (b) The clerk of court g...

...xclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays before the time of the required appearance of the defendant. Notice shall not be necessary if the time for appearance is within 72 hours from the time of arrest, or if the time is stated on the bond. While Section 903.26(1)(b) requires that a surety receive at least 72-hours notice before a bail bond can be estreated, the statute does not specify what form of notice is required or the manner in which it is to be served....

...m contrary to legislative intent to allow the State to do so, simply by making court calendars available and requiring sureties to inform themselves by this means. We therefore feel it is necessary to take an extra step in this case and clarify that Section 903.26(1)(b) not only requires actual notice, it requires "express actual notice." In other words, a surety must be provided with direct information of a defendant's appearance date....

...We believe this holding is mandated by the well established principle that forfeitures are not favored at law and statutes providing for them must be strictly construed. See, Caivana v. State, 331 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Having concluded that the notice required by Section 903.26(1)(b) was not provided to the Surety herein, it remains to be decided whether the trial court erroneously determined that it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief from the faulty judgment of forfeiture....

...Section 903.27(5) proscribes a 45-day time limit for the filing of motions to set aside judgments of forfeiture, and specifies that a trial court can only set aside a judgment for those reasons for which the forfeiture could have been discharged. These reasons are found in Section 903.26(5): (5) The court may discharge a forfeiture within 30 days upon: (a) A determination that it was impossible for the defendant to appear as required due to circumstances beyond his control....

...155 (1980), stating that an interpleader fund deposited in the registry of the court pursuant to court order was private money and reversing the Florida Supreme Court's decision which had considered such fund to be public money from the date of deposit until it left the account. 5 Section 903.26 (2)(a), F.S. 6 Section 903.26 (3)(a), F.S. 7 Section 903.26 (4)(a), F.S.

...Reich of Bruce S. Reich, P.A., Miami Beach, for Appellant. Clint Edge Roberson of McClain, Alfonso & Meeker, P.A., Dade City, for Appellees. LaROSE, Judge. Palmetto Surety Corporation appeals the trial court's final order denying its application for remission of bond estreature. See §§ 903.26, .28, Fla....

...9.030(b)(1)(A), and affirm.  Palmetto posted a $10,000 appearance bond for a defendant held for felony petit theft. The defendant failed to appear in court as required. An arrest warrant issued and the bond estreated. Several days later, the Clerk timely issued a certificate of bond forfeiture. § 903.26(2)(a), Fla....

...efendant’s appearance for October 7, 1977; however, the defendant failed to appear, and on December 28, 1977 judgment of estreature was entered. The surety moved to vacate the judgment of estrea-ture, the motion was denied, and this appeal ensued. Section 903.26(l)(a) states that no bond shall be forfeited unless the information, indictment, or affidavit was filed within six months from the date of the arrest....

...The trial court issued a capias and ordered the clerk of court to forfeit the defendant’s bond. Later the same day, the defendant voluntarily appeared before the trial court. The trial court executed the capias, and the defendant was incarcerated. Accredited moved to set aside the bond forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...een seen or heard from since. 4 Based on Mr. Zabala’s failure to appear as required, the trial court declared the bonds forfeited. Clerk Brock timely gave to Singh and Sun the statutorily required notice of bond forfeiture on October 29, 2009. See § 903.26(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). Singh and Sun then timely filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture. See § 903.27(5) (allowing the surety or the bail bond agent thirty-five days to seek relief from the forfeiture). Section 903.26(2)(a) also requires that the forfeiture be paid within sixty days from the date the notice was mailed....

THORNAL, Justice. Appellant State Fire & Casualty Company seeks reversal of a final judgment of the Circuit Court entered in favor of the State of Florida in an appearance bond *275 forfeiture proceeding under Section 903.26 et seq., Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ed to entry of judgment pursuant to Section 903.27, Florida Statutes, 1981.” As it does not appear that judgment has been entered as provided by section 903.27(1), nor that appellants have surely abandoned remedies available in circuit court under section 903.26(5) or 903.27(2), the appeal is DIS *309 MISSED without prejudice to appellants’ rights to appeal from a final judgment....

...bond to ensure the appearance of the ap-pellee, Boyden, in the municipal court of Miami Beach on December 18, 1967. When Boyden failed to make his appearance on said date, the trial judge ordered his bond estreated and, pursuant to the provisions of § 903.26, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., this estreature order was filed with the Clerk of the circuit court and an appropriate judgment thereon was ultimately entered in accordance with § 903.27, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...appearance bond. Burke failed to appear in court and on August 24, 1973 an order of forfeiture, followed by a final judgment on November 20, was entered against him and his surety, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, defendant-appellee herein [§ 903.26(4) (a), Fla.Stat.]....

...he trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the appealed order vacating finai judgment of forfeiture. Reversed and remanded to the trial court to reinstate the final judgment. So ordered. . This action was ineffectual because it was not timely, § 903.26(5) (d), Fla.Stat.

contract. When the defendant did not appear, section 903.26, Florida Statutes, and the bail bond contract

...ieved of the forfeiture because it was prejudiced by the failure of the court to promptly declare forfeiture and by the failure of the clerk of the court to give it notice of the nonappearance of the accused and consequent forfeiture, as required by § 903.26(2), Fla.Stat....

...The record demonstrates and, indeed, Dependable acknowledges in its brief, that it did receive proper pre-trial notice to produce the accused as required by § 903.-26(l)(b), Fla.Stat. It thus acknowledges that the essential condition precedent to forfeiture did occur. It argues only that had it received timely § 903.26(2) notice of the accused’s nonappearance at trial, it could have promptly commenced efforts to procure the accused’s return to Union County, thereby saving a substantial expenditure for costs of the incarceration of the accused in anoth...

...e automatically relieved of their obligation under the bond in every case simply because of the failure to give the statutory notice of a forfeiture which has already occurred. 370 So.2d at 1237 . In Allied Fidelity it was specifically held that the § 903.26(2) requirement that post-forfeiture notice be sent to the surety is “directory only,” and that such notice “is, definitively, not a condition precedent to forfeiture.” 415 So.2d at 111 ....

...went on to reemphasize the proper interpretation of the statute as follows: We recognize, however, that a surety may be entitled to discharge on its bond if prejudiced by the state’s conduct in failing to comply with the statutory requirements in section 903.26_ The burden, however, is clearly upon the surety to prove such prejudice by competent evidence. 451 So.2d at 923 . Thus prejudice, the burden of proof of which is clearly on the surety, is the crux of a defense to a forfeiture action on grounds of the state’s failure to comply with § 903.26(2)....

...restes Saiz, accused in a criminal information of trafficking in cocaine. When Saiz failed to appear for trial the court estreated the bond and issued a capias. 1 No notice was given the surety of the defendant’s original trial date as required by section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...t principles. We approve the reasoning and holding in Wiley . A surety may be entitled to discharge on its bond where there is a showing by competent evidence that the State’s conduct' in failing to comply with the statutory notice requirements of section 903.26(l)(b) caused prejudice....

...appeals from an order discharging an order of forfeiture of a bail bond issued on behalf of Brown, a criminal defendant. An agent of the surety surrendered Brown to the court six days after the forfeiture order. The surety moved to vacate the forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26(5)(c), and the court conditioned the discharge on the payment of $626.00 in “costs and expenses incurred by an official in returning the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.” Appellant challenges the costs and expense award...

...The bond was then declared forfeited by the trial court. A bond forfeiture was entered by the Clerk the next day. More than sixty days later, the Surety moved to discharge the forfeiture. The Surety alleged that the Clerk failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements under section 903.26, Florida Statutes, for a hearing that occurred months before the bond was forfeited....

...Comm’rs, 845 So. 2d 254, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Chapter 903, Florida Statutes, governs the pretrial release of criminal defendants. If a bond is forfeited, the surety may seek discharge within sixty days. And the statute provides only four bases for discharge. § 903.26(5), Fla. Stat. We are instructed that “[t]he discharge of a forfeiture shall not be ordered for any reason other than as specified [in section 903.26].” § 903.26(6), Fla. Stat. The Surety did not seek discharge of the forfeiture within sixty days, nor did it assert entitlement to discharge under one of the four bases provided in section 903.26(5)....

appear and breaches a bond as specified in Section 903.26 of the Florida Statutes, and who voluntarily

accused commits a new crime following release. See § 903.26(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (governing when and how bonds

...f Henderson's bond and cited Espinal v. Ryan, 31 So. 3d 818, 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in support thereof. By law, if a defendant fails to appear as required, "the court shall declare the bond and any bonds or money deposited as bail forfeited." § 903.26(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added). Likewise, "[f]ailure of the defendant to appear at the time, date, and place of required appearance shall result in forfeiture of the bond." § 903.26(2)(b) (emphasis added)....

...Thus, the trial court's initial actions in response to Henderson's failure to appear in court as directed were required by the statute's mandatory language. See id. However, once Henderson arrived in court twenty minutes late, the trial court was not without options. Section 903.26(2)(b) further provides that "the court may determine, in its discretion, in the interest of justice, that an appearance by the defendant on the same day as required does not warrant forfeiture of the bond" and "may direct the clerk to...

...you know, it's really the only way I can keep order" suggests that the court may not have appreciated the discretion it has to reconsider forfeiture rulings on a case-by-case basis and set aside such a ruling when doing so would be in the interest of justice. See § 903.26(2)(b). 4  In fact, the instant case may likely have been one such instance. Here, the court was aware of Henderson's transportation issues, his counsel advised that he would be arriving shortly,...

...arance bond. We agree and reverse. Criminal charges were brought against Russell Flint in Lee County. He posted a surety bond to guarantee his appearance. The surety was directed to produce Flint for arraignment on March 10, 1975, in accordance'with Section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1973)....

...to produce Flint on April 7, 1975, and arraignment was continued until that date. The trial court did not order the clerk of the court to send, nor did the clerk cause to be sent, written notice to the surety that Flint had to appear on April 7. See Section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1973)....

...ost incurred by the sheriff’s department in transporting Flint back to Lee County. The state argues that the trial court’s oral instruction to the surety on March 10 to produce Flint for arraignment on April 7 satisfied the notice requirement of Section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), thereby validating the forfeiture of the bond and making the one year time limitation of Section 903.28(1) Florida Statutes (1973), applicable to the surety. We feel the State’s position is well taken. Section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), is silent with respect to the form of notice required or the manner in which it is to be served....

...The surety was thereby placed upon actual notice to produce the defendant on April 7. We hold that, under these circumstances, the notice requirement of Section 903.-26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), was satisfied. Appellant’s reliance on dicta in Ramsey v. State, 225 So.2d 182 (Fla.2d DCA 1969), that the notice under Section 903.26 must be in writing is misplaced....

PER CURIAM. A surety appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a bond estreature, arguing that it was not given pre-forfeiture notice. Section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1998) requires the clerk of court to give a surety “at least 72 hours’ notice” before the time of the required appearance of the defendant....

Estreature because the notice requirements of section 903.26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997) were not met

...When defendant failed to appear in court for his arraignment, the bond was forfeited. 1 Jack’s Bail Bonds secured the arrest and surrender of the defendant eleven days after he failed to appear. Jack’s Bail Bonds, on behalf of Accredited and Gillion, then applied for discharge of the forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26(5)(c) of the Florida Statutes (1989)....

...We reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings to determine the actual costs expended, if any, by the county as a direct result of Gillion’s failure to appear. REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 903.26(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989). . Section 903.26(5)(c) provides: 903.26 Forfeiture of the bond; when and how directed; discharge; how and when made; effect of payment....

...was to provide a means to relieve against the obligations of the bond when the principal was prevented from appearing by circumstances beyond his control. The statute which was construed in that case is similar to the present subsec *143 tion, F.S. § 903.26(6), F.S.A., (1969) and involves discharge of the entire forfeiture although the surety may be required to pay costs and expenses....

...rt 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....

defendant did not appear for sentencing). *1226As section 903.26(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), provides, “[fjailure

...streated bond. The trial judge vacated the estreature order on June 15, 1977. On July 8th, the appellants filed their motion to vacate the final judgment. The motion was denied by order of September 28, 1977. 2 The defendant acted in accordance with Section 903.26(5)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), in the surrender....

...d by him January 8, 1979. He contends that the judgment based on the es-treature is invalid because he did not receive notice thereof within 72 hours of the forfeiture, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to set aside the judgment, relying on section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...As did Ryan , we point out that we are discussing only the post-forfeiture notice mentioned in subsection (2) of the statute and not the pre-forfeiture notice of subsection (l)(a). Finding no error, the judgment is AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, J., concur. . § 903.26(2), Fla.Stat....

...It suggests the trial court has no discretionary authority to exercise in the matter of forfeiture discharges unless the forfeiture has been paid, notwithstanding that the surety brought the principal back before the court. This is contrary to the provisions of section 903.26(5)(c), Florida Statutes, and the purpose of chapter 903 to insure presence of the defendants when required for court proceedings....

...The trial judge having already determined that the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendants, it would appear that failure to discharge the forfeiture would be an abuse of discretion unless the trial court can articulate some further reason for denying discharge in this case. § 903.26(5)(c), Fla.Stat....

...Procedure which enumerates specific reasons under which the motion can be made. Under the statute it is specified that the court can only set aside the judgment for the reasons for which the forfeiture could have been discharged. These are found in Section 903.26(5): (5) The court may discharge a forfeiture within 30 days upon: (a) A determination that it was impossible for the defendant to appear as required due to circumstances beyond his control....

(1981). . § 903.26(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). . § 903.26(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). . § 903.26(2), Fla.Stat

...Because the record does not reflect the entry of a forfeiture and an adequate remedy by appeal has not been demonstrably precluded, we deny the petition for certio-rari without prejudice to petitioner obtaining documents necessary for plenary appeal. See Huie v. State, 92 So.2d 264 (Fla.1957); § 903.26(2)(b), Fla.Stat....

...rance Company) on a defaulted appearance bond. Eddie Burke was charged by information with issuing a worthless check. He was released on the appearance bond. Burke failed to appear on August 24, 1973 as required. The bond was forfeited by the court (§ 903.26(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), and certification thereof was filed and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court on August 24, 1973 (§ 903.26(4) (a) Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...the state, an order was entered in another division of the circuit court (in the criminal action), on January 8, 1974, vacating the bond forfeiture 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....

...motions to vacate final judgments which had been entered against it, following bond forfeitures. In each of the judgments it was found that thirty days had elasped since the bond was forfeited and that the forfeiture thereof had not been discharged. Section 903.26 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Needless to say, Diaz absconded and, after he failed to appear for his scheduled arraignment, forfeiture of the bonds was entered by the clerk. Notice of the forfeiture was mailed to Po-lakoff on September 13, 2011, which gave Polakoff sixty days, or until November 13, to pay the forfeiture under section 903.26(2)(a), Florida Statutes....

...At this juncture, we note that if the principal appears on the specified date, albeit beyond the specified time, the trial court will have the discretion in the interest of justice to set aside any forfeiture of the bond that may have been entered. § 903.26(2)(b), Fla....

...In the event the breach is committed by an absconding principal who fails to appear in court when required, as Diaz did in the instant case, a forfeiture will automatically be entered by the clerk and notice of the forfeiture will be mailed to the surety within five days. § 903.26(2)(a)-(b), Fla....

...reach occurred. § 908.28(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). 4 The order either granting or denying remission is a final, appealable order that brings finality to the forfeiture issue. Second, the surety may file a motion to discharge the forfeiture pursuant to section 903.26(5)....

...ances beyond his or her control; 2) the principal was adjudicated insane and was confined at the time scheduled for his or her appearance; or 3) the principal surrenders or is arrested and the delay did not thwart the proper prosecution of the case. § 903.26(5)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2011); see also § 903.26(6), Fla....

...Here, Polakoff did not file a motion for remission pursuant to section 903.28(1) *257 or a motion to set aside judgment pursuant to the pertinent provisions of section 903.27. Instead, Polakoff filed a Motion to Set Aside Bond Forfeitures and Discharge Bonds. While motions to discharge forfeiture are authorized under section 903.26(5), that statute applies to a very limited number of circumstances that are inapplicable to the instant case....

...The trial court did grant the motion only as to the original charge that the State omitted from the Information. . This court in Audet applied the prior versions of the pertinent statutes that contained a thirty-five day period. For example, prior to the 2000 amendment of section 903.26(2)(a)', Florida Statutes, that section required that the forfeiture be paid within thirty-five days of the date the notice was mailed by the clerk. The amendment changed the time period to sixty days. Ch. 2000-178, § 4, Laws of Fla. The pertinent time periods contained in section 903.26 were changed from thirty-five days to sixty days via amendment to the statute in 1999....

...Here defendant appeared at all times required, no other breach of any bond condition has been suggested by anyone, and a final judgment of conviction was entered. The forfeiture of cash bail bonds deposited by a surety or someone other than the defendant under sections 903.16 and 903.17 is governed by section 903.26. 2 Subsection (l)(b) of section 903.26 clearly specifies that the clerk must give the surety at least 72 hours prior notice....