110 So. 3d 11
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fireline Bail Bonds and United States Fire Insurance Co. (Surety) appeal a circuit court order denying remission of two bail bond forfeitures.
- The State amended the information by adding a third charge (lewd or lascivious molestation) without notifying the Surety; no bond was set on the new charge and the defendant remained at liberty.
- At trial on the original charges, the defendant failed to appear after lunch; a capias issued and forfeiture notices were sent to the Surety, which paid the bonds in full on April 26, 2010.
- The Surety later recommitted the defendant within custody in Pennsylvania on May 1, 2011 and sought remission of forfeitures.
- The circuit court denied both full and partial remissions; the Surety timely appealed.
- The court held that the addition of a new charge did not discharge the Surety’s obligations under the preexisting bonds but affirmed remand for consideration of a partial remission based on recommit within two years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does adding a new charge discharge the Surety? | Surety contends new charge substantially altered the contract, requiring discharge/relief. | Clerk argues each bond is a separate contract; new charge does not affect preexisting bonds. | Addition of a new charge does not discharge the existing bonds. |
| Is partial remission available based on recommit within two years? | Surety seeks partial remission due to recommit within two years after forfeiture. | Clerk argues against any remission not tied to specific statutory grounds. | Partial remission available; remand for calculation and entry of appropriate order. |
| What is the appropriate disposition given the bonds were not blanket bonds? | American Bankers/Matt Howard suggest discharge on blanket bonds only; here bonds are specific. | Clerk relies on 903.02(4) separate bonds requirement; no discharge for added charge. | No discharge based on the addition of a new charge; remand for partial remission analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Midland Ins. Co. v. State, 354 So.2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (change in severity of existing charges can discharge surety)
- Integrity Bail Bonds v. Pinellas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 884 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (increased charge severity discharges surety)
- A-Altemative Release Bail Bonds v. Martin Cnty., 882 So.2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (increased charge severity discharges surety)
- American Bankers Insurance Co. v. Monroe County, 644 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (blanket bond addition treated as material alteration; discharged)
- Matt Howard Bail Bonds v. Escambia County Clerk of Court, 13 So.3d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (similar to American Bankers; blanket bond context)
- United States v. Kodelja, 629 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir. 1980) (addition of new charge does not discharge existing bond)
- Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13 (U.S. 1869) (principles of suretyship cited)