Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ave 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....

...Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to grant its motion; that Spalding's conviction occurred when he pled guilty on June 24, 1974, thereby satisfying the conditions of the bond; and that the trial judge should have then canceled the bond. Appellant points out that § 903.31, Florida Statutes, sets forth the conditions under which an order canceling a bond shall be entered by the court as follows: "When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled....

...upon whom a burden is placed by the law. Although appellant concedes that a number of more recent opinions of the Florida Supreme Court hold that a conviction necessarily includes an adjudication of guilt, [1] the appellant contends that as used in § 903.31, supra, it does not mean adjudication of guilt; that after a plea or verdict of guilty the probability of a defendant's leaving the jurisdiction of the court in order to escape punishment for an offense is considerably greater; that his inc...

...ve been deposited as bail, such money or bonds shall be refunded." (emphasis supplied) The foregoing rule makes it clear that the court's judgment of not guilty exonerates the surety and not the verdict of not guilty. Reverting back to the intent of § 903.31, supra, as to the meaning of the term "conviction" in the context there used, the last sentence of that previously quoted statute says: "......

...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....

...rnish the surety company a copy of the judgment within ten days. That statute also gives the surety forty-five days within which to file a motion to set aside the forfeiture judgment "for reasonable cause shown." In addition to the above provisions, section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1979), which was in effect in 1980 when the first order of forfeiture was entered, states: When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond cancelled....

...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. This argument is based primarily on the language in section 903.31 providing that when a forfeiture has been "discharged or remitted" then "the court shall order the bond cancelled." The surety contends that since the bond was cancelled by the vacation of the first order of forfeiture the trial court...

...State, 415 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (hereinafter Allied Fidelity I ), and argue that the authorities relied upon by the state are inapplicable for this reason. Appellants also urge that forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed and that use of the word "shall" in section 903.31 is mandatory in meaning and, thus, required the trial court to cancel the bond in this case....

...nd 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. In Weaver v. State, 370 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 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)....

...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....

...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. But again we note that neither the reason for this direction nor the impact of section 903.31 was discussed....

...ey v. State, supra , and the Third District's decision in Resolute I, supra, and, on the other hand, the Second District's decision in Caivano v. State, supra . However, because Resolute I expressly declined to reach the applicability and meaning of section 903.31 and neither Bailey nor Caivano discusses section 903.31 or gives any reason for ordering that the bond be cancelled or remain in effect, we do not consider any of these decisions to have addressed and decided the precise question presented here....

...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. The provisions of section 903.31 stating that the bond shall be cancelled when the forfeiture is discharged or remitted becomes applicable only when, by reason of a court order or the conduct of the state, it is clearly intended that the defendant be relieved of further obligation to appear in court or that the surety be relieved 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. Since the trial court's order in the instant case expressly stated that the surety was not relieved of further compliance with the terms of the bond, that order did not constitute a discharge or remission requiring cancellation of the bond under section 903.31....

...Because of the failure to comply with the statute, the court entered an order "setting aside the estreature" but providing that the bond should remain in full force and effect. Further, the court once again ordered Zul to appear at a time certain. Appellant moved for rehearing upon the ground that Section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1977), mandated cancellation of the bond....

...(2) 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. ..... 903.31 Canceling the bond....

...Conviction or acquittal of the defendant will satisfy a bond unless the court otherwise provides 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....

...the Doborganeses] shall have been fully discharged and all obligations of the Producer hereunder fully met, the said fund or such balance shall then be returned to the Producer with interest thereon. The trial court ruled that the bonds were discharged under section 903.31(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that bonds expire 36 months after they have been posted: (1) Within 10 business days after the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall orde...

...Allegheny argues that the underlined portion of the statute, upon which Roche relies, is not applicable to the bonds in question because it was added to the statute by amendment in 1999, [2] after the bonds were written. We agree that the statute does not apply retrospectively. First, section 903.31(1) affects substantive rights because it affects the counties' rights in forfeitable bail bonds....

...Appellant contends that the bonds were automatically canceled when the lower court failed to obtain proper authorization as provided in the agreement. For the following reasons, we disagree and affirm the actions of the lower court. At the time of the proceedings below, section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1979), read as follows: When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled....

...The bonding company or bondsman must apprise the court of any special condition or objection to continuation of the bond. An order of discharge must be obtained on the satisfaction of all bond conditions or restrictions other than those specifically approved in section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...County Atty., Orange County Attorney's Office, Orlando, for respondent. KOGAN, Justice. We have for review Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Orange County, 617 So.2d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), in which the Fifth District *1084 Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance: UNDER SECTION 903.31, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), IS THE CONDITION OF AN APPEARANCE BOND SATISFIED WHEN THE COURT ACCEPTS A PLEA OF GUILTY AND ENTERS A FINDING OF GUILT, BUT WITHHOLDS ADJUDICATION AND JUDGMENT AND CONTINUES THE CASE FOR SENTENCING UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION? 617 So.2d at 379....

...On July 14, 1991, after the extensions had expired, the trial court entered an order denying Polakoff's motion to set aside estreature and toll payment of estreature. Polakoff appealed. The Fifth District affirmed, rejecting Polakoff's contention that under section 903.31 and the terms of the appearance bonds, the trial court's entry of a finding of guilt with adjudication withheld pending a presentence investigation satisfied the conditions of the bonds....

...to appear for sentencing." 617 So.2d at 379. We agree. Polakoff proffers three somewhat interwoven arguments in support of its contention that the surety bonds were erroneously estreated. Polakoff first argues that according to the plain meaning of section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1991), the bonds were satisfied when the court ordered Joseph's presentence investigation....

...We agree that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute must be given effect. See, e.g., In re McCollam, 612 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1993); Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984). However, we disagree with Polakoff's reading of section 903.31....

...eals, conduct during or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program, payment of fines, or attendance at educational or rehabilitation facilities the court otherwise provides in the judgment. (Emphasis added.) The second sentence of section 903.31 makes clear that the conditions of the bond shall be satisfied upon an adjudication of guilt or innocence....

...d from their coverage Joseph's appearance for, among other things, presentence investigations. Such a provision in a bond agreement cannot relieve a bail bondsman of its obligation to the court to ensure the defendant's appearance in accordance with section 903.31....

...o. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322, 107 So. 684 (1926) (all contracts are made subject to valid provisions of law pertaining to their execution, construction and effect). Finally, we reject Polakoff's argument that Joseph was adjudicated guilty for purposes of section 903.31 when the court accepted her guilty plea and entered a finding of guilt. The First District Court of Appeal recently rejected a similar argument in Battles v. State, 595 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Confronted with a similar set of facts, the First District looked to the plain meaning of section 903.31 to conclude, as we have, that the entry of judgment is a predicate to satisfaction of an appearance bond....

...stigation, and scheduled a date for sentencing. When the defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court ordered estreature of the defendant's bond. After concluding that entry of judgment was necessary to satisfy the conditions of a bond under section 903.31, the First District held that an acceptance and entry of a nolo contendere plea is not tantamount to a judgment for such purposes....

..., and enters a finding of guilt, but withholds adjudication and continues the case for sentencing until the completion of a presentence investigation. Rather, a judgment must be entered before the conditions of an appearance bond are satisfied under section 903.31....

...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. The provisions of section 903.31 stating that the bond shall be cancelled when the forfeiture is discharged or remitted becomes applicable only when, by reason of a court order or the conduct of the state, it is clearly intended that the defendant be relieved of further obligation to appear in court or that the surety be relieved 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....

...e Company v. State, 410 So.2d 627 (Fla.2d DCA 1982), and the first district's decision in Accredited Surety and *747 Casualty Company, Inc. v. State, 318 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), had been rendered inapplicable by amendments in 1980 and 1986 to section 903.31, Florida Statutes. We disagree and find that both American Druggists' and Accredited Surety are both still applicable interpretations of section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...No presentence investigation was requested as there was an agreed-upon plea-bargained sentence. Fisher failed to appear for sentencing and his bond was ordered estreated. Subsequently, upon motion for rehearing, the bond estreature was set aside by the trial judge who determined that section 903.31 precluded any liability on Fisher's original appearance bond because it could not be construed to guarantee "deferred sentences." In this case, Fisher had not received a "deferred sentence" but had had his sentencing deferred until a later sentencing hearing....

...ion, appearances during or after appeals, or appearances after admission to a pretrial intervention program. Finally, the original appearance bond does not guarantee the payment of fines or attendance at educational or rehabilitative facilities. See § 903.31, Fla.Stat....

...The court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation. Dorsey failed to appear for sentencing on April 27, 1990, and the trial judge ordered estreature of the bond. Battles then moved for discharge of the estreature order, arguing that the bond itself, as well as certain limiting language in § 903.31, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...1986), prohibit the use of the original appearance bond as a guarantee for the defendant's appearance at a presentence investigation, pretrial intervention program, or appearance for appeal. The statutory provision relied upon by Battles, as amended by the Chapter 86-151, Laws of Florida, reads as follows: 903.31 Cancelling the bond — Within 10 business days after the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled and, if the surety has attached a certificate of cancellation t...

...f certain language in the bond, while it may have some efficacy as between the criminal defendant and the bonding company, does not effect an automatic termination of the bond obligation to the state, or to the court. In 1986 the legislature amended § 903.31 to provide that the original appearance bond shall not be construed to guarantee "appearance during or after a presentence investigation, appearance during or after appeals, (or) conduct during or *185 appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program ......

...s been amended, the entry of judgment is still required as a predicate to satisfaction of the bail bond. Indeed, the Second District has expressly held that Accredited Surety and American Druggists' retain their vitality under the current version of § 903.31....

...defendant entered his nolo contendere plea. Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed. We recognize, however, that the issue here is of importance throughout the state. We therefore certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: UNDER SECTION 903.31, FLORIDA STATUTES (Supp....

...rson who can least afford additional expense) in securing an additional bond. This court, however, is not the Legislature and should not alter or ignore clear statutory language. Steinbrecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So.2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Section 903.31, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida ("ABIC"), the surety on a bail bond, appeals a final "Bond Forfeiture Judgment." We agree with ABIC that the trial court erred in entering the forfeiture when the court had earlier reinstated the defendant's bond without ABIC's consent. See § 903.31(2), Fla....

HERSEY, Judge. This single issue appeal poses the question whether, under section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1989), the condition of an appearance bond is satisfied when the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, but enters no judgment, and passes the case for adjudication and sentencing until the completion of the presentence investigation....

...We agree with the rationale employed by the Battles court and affirm the order of the trial court here, which forfeited a surety bond under circumstances almost identical to those presented by the certified question in Battles . The Battles court explained its holding as follows: In 1986 the legislature amended § 903.31 to provide that the original appearance bond shall not be construed to guarantee “appearance during or after a presentence investigation, appearance during or after appeals, (or) conduct during or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program ......

...Indeed, the *613 Second District has expressly held that Accredited Surety [& Casualty Co. v. State, 318 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)] and American Druggists’ [Ins. Co. v. State, 410 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ] retain their vitality under the current version of § 903.31....

...Such programs shall provide appropriate counseling, education, supervision, and medical and psychological treatment as available and when appropriate for the persons released to such programs. Rosenberg claims that his responsibility was discharged pursuant to section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1993): 903.31 Cancelling the bond....

...conduct or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program....” The county argues that Rosenberg quotes this language with the hope that this court will ignore case law in which courts “simply refuse to adhere to [Rosenberg’s] literal reading” of the statute. The 1970 version of section 903.31 read as follows: When the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled....

...er judgment. On appeal, based on the current use of the term “conviction,” the court held that entry of a plea was not a conviction for purposes of the statute. Perhaps in response to Accredited Surety, in 1980 the legislature inartfully amended section 903.31 as follows: 903.31 Cancelling the bond....

...ed, and construed the 1980 statute to mean that a bond is automatically discharged only when there is an adjudication of either guilt or innocence. Id. at 628 . In 1986, the legislature again amended the statute to add the language emphasized below: 903.31 Canceling the bond....

...“In equally plain language,” the court stated, “the third sentence of the statute provides that the original appearance bond shall not guarantee an appearance during or after, among other things, a presentence investigation ‘the court otherwise provides in the judgment.’ ” Id. at 1084-1085 (quoting § 903.31)....

...fendant is accepted into a pretrial intervention program, we believe that the' legislature must have intended, in eases involving pretrial intervention, an exception to the general rule requiring an adjudication for discharge of a bond. We hold that section 903.31 reheves a surety’s obligation upon a defendant’s admission to a pretrial intervention program....

...Appellant Howard Forman, the Clerk of Court for Broward County (“Clerk”), appeals the trial court’s order granting the Surety’s1 motion to set aside a bond forfeiture and exonerate the bond. Because the trial court properly interpreted the language of section 903.31(1), Florida Statutes (2014), we affirm its decision. Background Nominal Appellee Charles Tay was charged with trafficking cocaine and conspiracy to traffic cocaine....

...That same day, the trial court issued a capias; and the following week it estreated the bond. 1 The original surety in this case was Platinum Bail Bonds, but Fire Line Bail Bonds is now the liable agent.  On August 6, 2014, the Surety moved to set aside the bond forfeiture and to exonerate the bond, arguing that under section 903.31(1) the bond had expired prior to the bond being forfeited or revoked....

...plain language. The trial court ultimately found that the use of the word “shall” in the statute was dispositive and ruled in the Surety’s favor, setting aside the bond forfeiture and exonerating the bond. Analysis Section 903.31(1) states: Within 10 business days after the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled and, if the surety has attached a certific...

...Since the bond already had expired under the statute, the trial court’s ruling forfeiting the bond was ineffectual. To allow the bond’s expiration to be limited by a post-expiration forfeiture, as the Clerk suggests, would vitiate the Legislature’s choice to include the expiration provision. This construction of section 903.31 is consistent with the “[l]iberal interpretation of such statutes in favor of sureties ....

adjudicated Gore and sentenced him in absentia. Section 903.31(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that

...Joseph subsequently pled guilty to some of the charges. The trial court entered a finding of guilt but withheld adjudication pending a presentence investigation and set sentencing for a later date. Joseph was continued on bail but failed to appear for sentencing. Appellants contend that under section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1991), 1 and under the terms of the appearance bonds, 2 these *379 bonds cannot be construed to guarantee appearance during or after a presentence investigation....

...the bonds had not been satisfied and were subject to estreature for Joseph’s failure to appear for sentencing. As the court did in Battles , we certify, as a matter of great public importance, a similar question to the Florida Supreme Court: UNDER SECTION 903.31, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), IS THE CONDITION OF AN APPEARANCE BOND SATISFIED WHEN THE COURT ACCEPTS A PLEA OF GUILTY AND ENTERS A FINDING OF GUILT, BUT WITHHOLDS ADJUDICATION AND JUDGMENT AND CONTINUES THE CASE FOR SENTENCING UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION? AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Section 903.31 provides: Within 10 business days after the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled and, if the surety has attached a certificate of cancellation to the...

...stigation, appearance during or after appeals, conduct during or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program, payment of fines, or attendance at educational or rehabilitation facilities the court otherwise provides in the judgment. § 903.31, Fla.Stat....

...Under the circumstances of this case, where the depositor of a cash bond was not the defendant, the depositor becomes a surety. Louise Minasian gave a specific undertaking, quoted above, and that undertaking contains no agreement by her that her cash bond could be forfeited to pay restitution. Section 903.31 requires that a bond be cancelled within 10 business days after all conditions have been fulfilled....