Florida's Cost Bond Statute On Appeal…..A most interesting case….ARE THE BANKS ABOVE THE LAW? (apparently they must be)

 
The record and facts do not support any argument US Bank did not receive proper notice. (R300) On the contrary, the record shows US Bank, filed (Bond #1) (R240) and (Bond #2) (R151-152) within (5) short days of being served notice.
Thereafter, the record and facts show Mr. Boyer, served on US Bank, and filed with the Clerk5, a Motion to Strike Defective Bond and Dismiss the case with prejudice. The parties appeared for the April 24, 2012 trial,   during which US Bank, made an Ore Tenus Motion to continue the trial to a subsequent time and Judge Williams entered an Order granting same.
US Bank, argues, in its Initial Brief, that it is permissible for an attorney to sign a ” bond with surety” as agent for a client in a judicial proceeding but failed to disclose that the bond must still have a surety/sureties thereon.
Therefore, all such arguments vanished and have no merit.
An additional copy was hand delivered to the Court and an additional copy handed to opposing counsel.
US Bank had (39) days prior to the June 1st trial to act on the opportunity to remedy its defective ” bonds with surety” . US Bank, dug in its heels and continued to voluntarily and willfully argue it ” filed” a proper ” bond with surety” with the Clerk, and incorrectly argue that the statute ” anticipated” that the law firm do so, as though they were somehow forced.
The record shows, Mr. Boyer argued US Bank’s bond was defective, and he also argued in the alternative, that if US Bank’s attorneys were not the sureties on (Bond #2), because US Bank did not sign it then no bond existed, and presented supporting case law.
Judge Williams considered arguments by both parties and issued her ruling granting Mr. Boyer’s Motion and dismissed US Bank’s complaint with prejudice based upon §57.011 and 454.20.
US Bank continued its same and/or similar arguments in its premature Motion for Rehearing   regarding ” filing” a ” bond with surety and about depositing ” said sum into court” , which was considered by the LT without hearing and denied, and is still being echoed in this Appeal in its Initial Brief.
Douglas C. Zahm P.A., is the law firm for US Bank, pledged its own personal funds (Ck #199130) (R240) as the 3rd defined ” bond with surety” within §45.011.   approved by the Clerk in this judicial proceeding in the LT. Mr. Boyer, brought to the attention of the LT that US Bank’s cases were not on point regarding its incorrect position that the $100.00 (Bond #1) was a Clerk fee. US Bank, incorrectly argued in the LT ” bond with surety” was a Clerk fee presenting 2 cases that discussed Clerk fees, but did not hold anywhere that a ” bond with surety” was a Clerk fee.   US Bank, admitted to Judge Williams that said cases were not on point, and were also provided with a copy of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court’s, Clerk of the Court Fee Schedule2 evidencing the fact there is no Bond with Surety $100.00 Clerk fee on said Schedule, only an $8.50 Clerk Fee for approving said ” bond with surety”
The record shows Douglas C. Zahm, P.A. pledged its own funds as the $100.00 ” bond with surety” in the same check comingled with the $8.50 Clerk Fee for approving said bond. (R240)
The record and facts do not support any argument US Bank did not receive proper notice. (R300) On the contrary, the record shows US Bank, filed (Bond #1) (R240) and (Bond #2) (R151-152) within (5) short days of being served notice.
Thereafter, the record and facts show Mr. Boyer, served on US Bank, and filed with the Clerk5, a Motion to Strike Defective Bond and Dismiss the case with prejudice. (R164). The parties appeared for the April 24, 2012 trial,   during which US Bank, made an Ore Tenus Motion to continue the trial to a subsequent time and Judge Williams entered an Order granting same. (R 201)
US Bank, argues, in its Initial Brief, that it is permissible for an attorney to sign a ” bond with surety” as agent for a client in a judicial proceeding but failed to disclose that the bond must still have a surety/sureties thereon.
Therefore, all such arguments vanished and have no merit.
An additional copy was hand delivered to the Court and an additional copy handed to opposing counsel.
US Bank had (39) days prior to the June 1st trial to act on the opportunity to remedy its defective ” bonds with surety” (Bond #1);(Bond #2). US Bank, dug in its heels and continued to voluntarily and willfully argue it ” filed” a proper ” bond with surety” with the Clerk, and incorrectly argue that the statute ” anticipated” that the law firm do so, as though they were somehow forced.(R16:4-5)
The record shows, Mr. Boyer argued US Bank’s bond was defective, and he also argued in the alternative, that if US Bank’s attorneys were not the sureties on (Bond #2), because US Bank did not sign it then no bond existed, and presented supporting case law.   Judge Williams considered arguments by both parties and issued her ruling granting Mr. Boyer’s Motion and dismissed US Bank’s complaint with prejudice based upon §57.011 and 454.20.
US Bank continued its same and/or similar arguments in its premature Motion for Rehearing regarding ” filing” a ” bond with surety and about depositing ” said sum into court” , which was considered by the LT without hearing and denied (R283-284), and is still being echoed in this Appeal in its Initial Brief.
The full brief below:
boyerusboyer