Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the 30-day filing requirement for a bondsman's statement under section 903.14(3), Florida Statutes (1981), was directory rather than mandatory. Because the late filing caused no prejudice and the statute imposed no explicit consequence for untimeliness, the indemnitors' contractual obligation to the surety remained enforceable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the thirty-day filing requirement in section 903.14(3), Florida Statutes (1981), is mandatory such that an untimely filing abrogates the indemnitors' contractual obligation.
- Whether a nonprejudicial delay in filing the bond indemnification statement requires cancellation of an otherwise binding contractual obligation.
Holdings
- The requirement that a bondsman's statement of a bond indemnification agreement be filed within thirty days after execution of the bond is directory rather than mandatory; therefore, an untimely filing does not, by itself, abrogate the indemnitors' obligation to the surety.
Key quotations
“the provision of section 903.14(3), Florida Statutes (1981) that the bondsman's statement of any bond indemnification agreement "must" be filed in the trial court within thirty days after the execution of the bond is directory rather than mandatory” (474 So. 2d at 303)
“Finally, bearing in mind the policy against the forfeiture of contractual rights, Rivers v. Amara, 40 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1949), we are very loath, in the absence of a clear legislative command, to require the cancellation of an otherwise binding obligation because of a technical default which acknowledgedly did not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (474 So. 2d at 304)
Factual background
The indemnitors' agreement was listed on a statement filed by the bondsman or surety under section 903.14(3), Florida Statutes (1981). Although the statute required filing within thirty days after execution of the bond, the statement was not received or filed until sixty-two days later. The parties acknowledged that the delay was nonprejudicial and did not affect the defendant's failure to appear, the resulting estreature, or any other aspect of the contractual undertaking.
Procedural history
The lower court concluded that the filing deadline in section 903.14(3), Florida Statutes (1981), was directory rather than mandatory and that the late filing did not extinguish the indemnitors' obligation because the delay caused no prejudice. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed.