County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg National Insurance
235 Cal. App. 4th 944
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Williamsburg National posted a $200,000 bail bond; defendant failed to appear and the court clerk mailed forfeiture notice on July 23, 2012, starting a 185‑day exoneration period under Penal Code §1305.
- Williamsburg moved to extend the exoneration period on January 22, 2013; the court granted an extension on February 1, 2013 (169 days), making the extended period expire July 20, 2013.
- On July 22, 2013 (the next court day), Williamsburg filed a second motion to extend the exoneration period and set the hearing for August 27, 2013; it also submitted investigator declarations describing ongoing efforts to locate the defendant.
- The trial court denied the July 22 motion the same day without an oral hearing, stating the papers did not show good cause, and entered summary judgment against Williamsburg on August 9, 2013.
- Williamsburg appealed, arguing the court violated its statutory right to an oral hearing under Penal Code §§1305.4 and 1305(j); the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed and remanded for an oral hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Williamsburg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a surety is entitled to an oral hearing on a §1305.4 motion to extend the exoneration period | No oral hearing required; court may decide on papers and calendar limitations may strip jurisdiction | Statute requires a hearing; references to “calendared,” “appear,” and “hearing” mean an oral hearing is mandated | Court held §§1305.4 and 1305(j) create a statutory right to an oral hearing on an extension motion |
| Whether the July 22 motion was defective or untimely because it set hearing beyond 30 days after expiration | Motion invalid because noticed for Aug 27 (36 days after expiration) and thus beyond §1305(j)’s 30‑day hearing window | Motion was timely when filed; court could have extended the 30‑day window or advanced the hearing; denial without hearing was improper | Court rejected County’s jurisdictional defect argument and found the motion valid when denied |
| Whether an evidentiary prima facie showing of good cause in the written papers is required before granting an oral hearing | Argued at oral argument that written prima facie showing is prerequisite to an oral hearing | Statute contains no such requirement; hearing must be provided to decide good cause | Court rejected County’s late prima facie threshold argument as unsupported by statute or precedent |
| Whether Williamsburg must show prejudice from denial of hearing to obtain reversal | County: appellant must show prejudicial error | Williamsburg: statutory protection for sureties means prejudice need not be shown where mandatory procedures were violated | Court held prejudice need not be shown because the violation contravened statutes designed to protect the surety |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., 220 Cal.App.4th 1137 (2013) (explains that extension under §1305.4 is discretionary and requires showing of good cause)
- People v. Taylor Billingslea Bail Bonds, 74 Cal.App.4th 1193 (1999) (discusses limits on extensions of exoneration periods)
- Brannon v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 1203 (2004) (interprets statutory references to "hearing" and “date of hearing” as contemplating an oral hearing)
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (1999) (addresses when statutory use of “heard” or “hearing” implies an oral hearing)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (clarifies that §1305.4 extensions run from the date of the court’s order)
- People v. Aegis Security Ins. Co., 130 Cal.App.4th 1071 (2005) (emphasizes strict construction of forfeiture statutes in favor of sureties)
- People v. Granite State Ins. Co., 114 Cal.App.4th 758 (2003) (describes notice and 185‑day exoneration period requirements)