People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty etc.
220 Cal. App. 4th 1137
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Surety posted a $100,000 bail bond for Ji Liang Cheng, who later failed to appear for sentencing, triggering bail forfeiture.
- Notice of forfeiture was mailed to Surety on January 18, 2011, stating the bond was forfeited for defendant's failure to appear.
- Surety timely sought an extension under Penal Code 1305.4, with the People agreeing that extension was warranted, leading to an August 5, 2011 order extending the deadline to January 31, 2012.
- No motion for relief from forfeiture was granted or pursued after the extension, and summary judgment on the forfeiture was entered April 26, 2012.
- Surety moved to set aside the summary judgment, discharge the forfeiture, and exonerate bail, arguing the entry was beyond the 90‑day limit of Penal Code 1306(c).
- The trial court denied Surety’s motion; the appellate court held Surety is estopped from challenging timeliness and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of forfeiture satisfied due process for a corporate surety | People contend notice was adequate under statute and due process. | Surety argues notice must spell out relief procedures and time limits for due process. | Notice adequate; not void for due process. |
| Whether the summary judgment was entered within the statutory deadline | People maintain entry fell within permissible period after extension. | Surety contends entry exceeded 90 days after authorized extension and is void. | Entry was beyond the authorized window; however, estoppel applies to sustain denial. |
| Whether Surety is estopped from challenging the timeliness of the summary judgment | People argue no estoppel; summons timely challenge not made. | Surety asserts no consent to extension content or timing. | Surety estopped due to acquiescence and conduct extending the appearance period. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Swink, 150 Cal.App.3d 1076 (Cal. App. 1984) (deficient notice to layperson if lacking relief procedures and time limits)
- Minor v. Municipal Court, 219 Cal.App.3d 1541 (Cal. App. 1990) (notice insufficient to inform about relief from forfeiture and time limits)
- People v. Granite State Ins. Co., 114 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. App. 2003) (extension of appearance period and 90-day period interpretation)
- People v. Bankers Ins. Co., 182 Cal.App.4th 1377 (Cal. App. 2010) (estoppel when surety seeks improper extension; timeliness considerations)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) (summary judgment premature but voidable, not void; estoppel considerations)
- Taylor Billingslea Bail Bonds, 74 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. App. 1999) (ambiguous language in 1305.4; legislative intent to limit extensions)
- People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (related), 182 Cal.App.4th 1377 (Cal. App. 2010) (see above related Bankers decision on estoppel and extensions)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court 1950) (due process requires notices reasonably calculated to inform of procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (three-factor Mathews balancing for due process)
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (notice must inform of procedural opportunities; context-sensitive)