People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co.
230 Cal. App. 4th 548
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Accredited Surety posted a $25,000 bail bond for Christopher D. V. Williams in Fresno County; Williams failed to appear and the trial court declared the bond forfeited, triggering a 185-day appearance/exoneration period.
- Williams was arrested in Sacramento County on unrelated charges within the appearance period; Fresno placed a hold on him the same day, and he later remained in custody and was sentenced in Sacramento and transferred to state prison.
- Surety’s bail agent obtained Sacramento custody information, believed Williams would be transferred back to Fresno, and checked with Fresno clerks who could not locate the file; the agent was (mistakenly) given a minute order that appeared to show an exoneration (later learned to relate to a different bond).
- The trial court entered summary judgment (forfeiture) March 5, 2013; Surety filed a motion to vacate/exonerate after that date and invoked Penal Code § 1305.6(b) seeking a 20‑day postjudgment filing window based on “good cause.”
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Surety failed to show good cause to extend filing time and lacked competent evidence that a hold specific to the Fresno case had been placed; Surety appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “good cause” under Pen. Code § 1305.6(b) | Good cause should be narrowly formalistic and require evidence the defendant was arrested/surrendered during the appearance period plus explanations for filing failure tied to custody status | Good cause is flexible and fact‑specific; once the defendant is in custody elsewhere the surety’s reasons for not filing during the period should be evaluated under the totality of circumstances | Court: “Good cause” includes both an objective (reasonableness) and subjective (good faith) component; apply totality of circumstances; standard less demanding than §1305.4 because §1305.6(b) grants only a 20‑day extension. |
| Whether Surety established subjective good faith | N/A (County argued lack of good cause) | Bail agent acted in honest, good‑faith reliance on custody reports and clerk communications | Court: Subjective good faith satisfied — no evidence of dishonesty. |
| Whether Surety established objective reasonableness for waiting to file until after appearance period | N/A | Agent reasonably relied on belief Williams would be returned to Fresno before the period expired and on clerks’ minute order indicating exoneration | Court: Not reasonable — Surety failed to show why transfer to Fresno before expiration was likely, agent’s stated experience conflicted with inexperience, and the minute order was not in the record for evaluation. |
| Whether bond should be exonerated because defendant was in custody outside county with a hold placed | County argued no competent evidence hold applied to this Fresno case | Surety asserted Sacramento arrest and Fresno hold satisfied §1305(c)(3) and §1305.6(b) relief | Court: Did not reach this issue because Surety failed to meet §1305.6(b) good cause requirement; alternate ground (insufficient evidence the hold was for this case) supported denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co., 49 Cal.4th 301 (California Supreme Court 2010) (motions under §1305(c)(3) must generally be filed within the 180‑day period)
- Waters v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 885 (California Supreme Court 1962) (good cause is a factual showing of a reasonable ground; avoid legal formalism)
- People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc., 137 Cal.App.4th 1349 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (test for good cause under §1305.4: due diligence, reasonable likelihood of capture, other relevant circumstances)
- People v. Western Ins. Co., 204 Cal.App.4th 1025 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (explaining the 185‑day statutory period for producing defendant to set aside forfeiture)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (California Supreme Court 2004) (bail bonds are contractual and bail forfeiture statutes construed to avoid forfeiture)
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (California Supreme Court 2008) (abuse of discretion standard and deference to trial court factual findings)