People v. Financial Casualty & Surety
A145568
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- FC Surety posted a $150,000 bail bond for Carlos Ventura; court issued bench warrant and forfeited the bond after Ventura failed to appear. Notice of forfeiture mailed Oct 7, 2014, triggering a 185-day appearance period.
- On March 12, 2015 (within the appearance period), FC Surety's bail agent learned Ventura was in custody in Contra Costa County and attempted twice to have the San Francisco warrant served, but the Contra Costa Sheriff’s system showed no warrant.
- On April 3, 2015 the bail agent moved to vacate the forfeiture under Penal Code §980(b) (arguing the warrant wasn't entered into the national system); the court denied that motion on April 27, 2015. An oral extension request was denied for lack of writing.
- Summary judgment on the forfeiture was entered Aug 19, 2015 (notice mailed Aug 21); FC Surety electronically filed a §1305(c)(3) motion to set aside judgment on Sept 9, 2015 (deemed timely filed Sept 10). The trial court denied the motion Oct 28, 2015.
- FC Surety appealed; the Court of Appeal considered whether the §1305.6(b) 20-day post-judgment filing period and its "good cause" standard applied and whether relief under §1305(c)(3) (defendant arrested out of county) required setting aside the forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §1305.6(b) | Motion untimely; file-stamp was Sept 11 | Motion was e-filed Sept 9 and deemed filed Sept 10 under local rules | Motion was timely (deemed filed Sept 10) |
| Good-cause to file post-judgment under §1305.6(b) | Surety lacked good cause because it failed to pursue §1305(c)(3) during appearance period | Good cause exists: subjective good faith and objectively reasonable reliance on sheriff's representations and pursuit of §980(b) relief | Good cause shown (both subjective and objective prongs satisfied) |
| Entitlement to relief under §1305(c)(3) (defendant arrested out of county) | Even if timely, motion fails because §1305(c)(3) motions must be filed within the appearance period | Defendant was held in Contra Costa during the appearance period and the surety first learned of the warrant service after the appearance period; §1305(c)(3) mandates vacatur when defendant is arrested out of county | §1305(c)(3) relief required: set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture, exonerate bond |
| Whether prior cases (e.g., Indiana Lumbermans) bar post-appearance §1305(c)(3) relief | Trial court relied on Indiana Lumbermans to bar late §1305(c)(3) motions | §1305.6(b) (enacted after Indiana Lumbermans) expressly allows post-judgment motions upon good cause | Indiana Lumbermans does not preclude §1305.6(b) relief; statute controls |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (discusses nature of bail bond and forfeiture remedies)
- People v. The North River Ins. Co., 200 Cal.App.4th 712 (explains the 185-day appearance period)
- People v. Lexington National Insurance Corp., 181 Cal.App.4th 1485 (addresses tolling of appearance period for out-of-jurisdiction detention)
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 35 (policy: bail forfeitures disfavored)
- People v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., 204 Cal.App.4th 588 (standards of review for bail forfeiture motions)
- People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co., 230 Cal.App.4th 548 (sets out good-cause standard for §1305.6(b))
- Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 49 Cal.4th 301 (cited by trial court but enacted before §1305.6)
- Voit v. Superior Court, 201 Cal.App.4th 1285 (clerk's duty to file timely-submitted documents)