Singh Bail Bonds v. Brock

Citations: 88 So. 3d 960; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17502; 2011 WL 5252736Docket: No. 2D10-675

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 4, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellant Singh Bail Bonds, along with coappellant Sun Surety Insurance Co., posted $350,000 in appearance bonds for defendant Oscar Zabala, who failed to appear in court. Consequently, the trial court ordered the bonds forfeited, leading Clerk Dwight Brock to issue an amended bond forfeiture judgment for $350,000. Singh and Sun appealed and contended the trial court incorrectly denied their motion to set aside the forfeiture.

The case arose from a criminal prosecution against Zabala, where he was required to post $50,000 per count for fourteen charges and surrender his passport. However, he did not surrender his passport and failed to appear after a motion to suppress was denied. Following his failure to appear, the trial court declared the bonds forfeited. Notice of the forfeiture was properly given to Singh and Sun on October 29, 2009, but they did not remit payment within the mandated sixty-day period, prompting the judgment against them.

Subsequently, Clerk Brock corrected an initial judgment error regarding the number of bonds and the total amount owed. After the trial court denied Singh and Sun's motion to set aside the forfeiture, they appealed the amended judgment, which is deemed a final appealable order under section 903.27(1). The judgment is based on the statutory requirement for payment or court discharge within sixty days, and the appeal follows the precedent set in Al Estes Bonding Co. v. Pinellas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, allowing review of the denial of the motion to set aside the forfeiture.

Section 903.27 outlines the necessary steps for a surety or bail bond agent to contest a bond forfeiture following a judgment notification from the circuit court clerk. Within 35 days, the surety can file a motion to set aside or stay the judgment, contingent upon depositing the forfeiture amount—in this case, $350,000—into escrow. This escrow payment is critical, as it triggers an automatic stay on further proceedings until the court resolves the motion. 

Singh and Sun attempted to invoke this process after receiving notice of their bonds' forfeiture due to Mr. Zabala's nonappearance. However, they failed to meet the precondition of depositing the required $350,000, which bars them from seeking relief. Additionally, a breach of the bond, defined by a failure to pay the forfeiture, further complicates their case. 

Despite filing a motion to set aside the forfeiture, which temporarily stayed proceedings, the court's later amended judgment clarified the amounts owed and did not constitute a new judgment. The lack of the escrow deposit meant the trial court could have dismissed their motion to set aside the forfeiture without further delay. Nevertheless, the trial court addressed the motion based on its merits and ultimately denied it, affirming that no grounds existed to overturn the forfeiture. The amended bond forfeiture judgment remains effective, with the court affirming the decision. 

Singh had posted bonds initially for all fourteen counts but later limited them to seven counts at $50,000 each, totaling $350,000. A separate appeal concerning additional counts is ongoing. The document also mentions a procedural issue regarding Mr. Zabala's passport but does not require resolution from this court.

Singh was obligated under section 903.045, Florida Statutes (2009), to ensure Mr. Zabala's presence at all court appearances and to take necessary measures to prevent his nonappearance. Despite discovering that Mr. Zabala was in Argentina, Singh failed to convince local authorities to arrest him or to arrange for extradition. This situation does not serve as a valid defense against the bond forfeiture as argued by Singh and Sun, referencing Al Estes Bonding Co. v. Pinellas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, which established that similar circumstances do not prevent bond forfeiture.

Initially, Mr. Zabala successfully reduced his bond from $750,000 to $700,000, with the amended judgment correctly reflecting the seven bonds posted by Singh and Sun and setting the due amount at $350,000. Clerk Brock also filed a satisfaction of the prior erroneous judgment and an amended notice of forfeiture, which Singh and Sun argued reset their statutory rights. However, this argument was rejected since the amended judgment merely corrected prior calculation errors.

The court noted that while traditional language for execution is not required, its inclusion can prevent issues in execution applications. Clerks of court are granted authority under section 903.27(1) to enter final, executable judgments in bond forfeiture cases. The court found no merit in the various grounds for reversal presented by Singh and Sun. They were required to pay the forfeited amount within thirty days of October 29, 2009, when notified of the forfeiture, but failed to do so, thus denying Clerk Brock the statutory benefit. This failure was exacerbated by their counsel’s incorrect adherence to appellate rules and delays in filing necessary documents, including failing to serve Clerk Brock until mandated by the court.