People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
B309234
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 16, 2022Background
- Financial Casualty & Surety (Surety) posted a $100,000 bail bond for a defendant who failed to appear and the court declared the bond forfeited; clerk mailed forfeiture notice to Surety on May 23, 2019.
- The statutory appearance period to cure or move to vacate was 185 days; the court later granted a 180‑day extension, making the deadline June 10–11, 2020.
- When the appearance period expired without relief, the court entered summary judgment against Surety for the bond amount on July 31, 2020; notice of judgment was mailed August 3, 2020.
- On August 17, 2020 Surety moved to set aside the summary judgment under CCP §473(b), arguing COVID‑19 shelter‑in‑place orders and Judicial Council Emergency Rule 9 tolled the appearance period.
- The trial court denied the motion on October 16, 2020; Surety appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Emergency Rule 9 did not toll the appearance period.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Surety's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judicial Council Emergency Rule 9 tolled the Penal Code §1305 appearance period to move to vacate a bail forfeiture | Rule 9 tolls statutes of limitations for commencing civil actions only; §1305 appearance period is not such a statute | Rule 9 tolled “statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes,” including special proceedings like forfeiture motions | Rule 9 does not apply; the appearance period is not a statute of limitations subject to Rule 9 tolling |
| Whether a motion to vacate a forfeiture is a pleading/commencement of a civil cause for purposes of Rule 9 | A motion for relief is ancillary/defensive, not a pleading commencing a civil cause | A motion to vacate commences an action for relief from forfeiture and thus is covered by Rule 9 | Motion to vacate is defensive/ancillary, not a pleading commencing a civil cause; Rule 9 does not extend the appearance period |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 73 Cal.App.5th 33 (interpreting Emergency Rule 9 and bail‑forfeiture procedure)
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 35 (describing bail bond contract and surety obligations)
- County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 5 Cal.5th 309 (on court declaration of forfeiture)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (defenses and nature of forfeiture proceedings)
- People v. North River Ins. Co., 53 Cal.App.5th 559 (summary judgment required if forfeiture not vacated)
- People v. Wilcox, 53 Cal.2d 651 (discussing appealability of relief from forfeiture)
- People v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 261 Cal.App.2d 773 (context on characterization of appearance period)