People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/1
D079467
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2022Background
- Financial Casualty & Surety (through Bail Hotline) posted a $25,000 bond for Christopher Trujeque; court later raised bail to $125,000 (no record of inquiry into ability to pay or nonmonetary alternatives).
- Surety posted a $125,000 bond; Trujeque failed to appear at a readiness hearing and the court ordered forfeiture and later entered summary judgment against Surety.
- Surety moved to vacate forfeiture under Penal Code §1305 and, relying on In re Humphrey, argued the bail increase was constitutionally infirm because the court did not consider ability to pay or less restrictive alternatives.
- Trial court denied the motion (also saying Surety lacked standing/waived objection), and the clerk entered summary judgment; Surety appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that even if the bail-setting violated Humphrey, that constitutional error does not void the surety’s independent contractual obligation under the bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Surety) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Humphrey-style constitutional error in setting bail voids the bond and prevents forfeiture | Any error does not nullify the bond; bond remains enforceable | Constitutional error in bail-setting (failure to consider ability to pay/alternatives) renders the underlying obligation void, so surety cannot be held | Court: Humphrey error, at most, makes the bail order voidable not void; bond remains enforceable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Standing and waiver to raise Humphrey claim after posting bond | Surety lacked standing and waived the claim by not objecting at arraignment | Surety has standing and did not forfeit a constitutional challenge | Court treated these peripheral; did not base result on waiver/standing—rejected claim on merits following precedent |
| Whether an order setting bail without Humphrey procedures is void or voidable for jurisdictional purposes | Order is void (thus bond unenforceable) | Order is voidable; court had jurisdiction so bond stands | Court: order is voidable, not void; jurisdiction existed and bond contract independent, so enforceable |
| Whether enforcing the bond is unconscionable (contract of adhesion) | Enforcement is not unconscionable; no unconscionability in contract with state | Bail-setting is an adhesion contract and unconscionable; enforcement should be refused | Court: unconscionability argument raised first on appeal and fails—bond contract is between surety and state, not a coercive bilateral contract requiring defendant’s consent; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Humphrey, 11 Cal.5th 135 (Cal. 2021) (trial courts must consider ability to pay and less restrictive alternatives when setting bail)
- In re Humphrey, 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (granting habeas where bail was set without considering ability to pay or alternatives)
- People v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., 62 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2016) (describing bail bond as a contractual guaranty to ensure appearance)
- People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., 34 Cal.App.5th 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (Humphrey error does not void surety’s bond obligations)
- People v. North River Ins. Co., 48 Cal.App.5th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (distinguishing void vs. voidable orders; Humphrey error renders order voidable)
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 64 Cal.App.5th 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (same: Humphrey error does not invalidate judgment against surety)
- People v. Lexington Nat'l Ins. Co., 242 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (bail order is the offer; posting bond is acceptance; surety assumes independent contractual obligations)