You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. v. Putnam County

Citations: 491 So. 2d 353; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1619; 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8993Docket: No. 85-1365

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 24, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Accredited Surety and Casualty Co. Inc. appealed an order that discharged a forfeiture of a bail bond for defendant Brown after an agent surrendered him to the court six days post-forfeiture. The surety sought to vacate the forfeiture under section 903.26(5)(c), with the court allowing the discharge contingent upon the payment of $626.00 for costs and expenses related to returning the defendant. The appellant contested this award, arguing that there was no hearing to substantiate the costs. However, the record indicated that the appellant neither requested a hearing nor objected to the award being set without one. Consequently, the court found no error, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's decision. Judges Upchurch and Orfinger concurred.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision

Application: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision due to the absence of any demonstrated error in the process of cost determination and forfeiture discharge.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court found no error, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's decision.

Discharge of Bail Bond Forfeiture under Section 903.26(5)(c)

Application: The court allowed the discharge of the bail bond forfeiture contingent upon the payment of costs and expenses after the defendant was surrendered post-forfeiture.

Reasoning: The surety sought to vacate the forfeiture under section 903.26(5)(c), with the court allowing the discharge contingent upon the payment of $626.00 for costs and expenses related to returning the defendant.

Requirement of Hearing for Cost Determination

Application: The appellant's failure to request a hearing or object to the cost determination without a hearing meant that the court found no procedural error in awarding costs.

Reasoning: The appellant contested this award, arguing that there was no hearing to substantiate the costs. However, the record indicated that the appellant neither requested a hearing nor objected to the award being set without one.