People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance
194 Cal. App. 4th 45
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (surety) appeals a denial to set aside the forfeiture of a $75,000 bail bond for Shawn Bergman on DUI causing great bodily injury charges.
- Bergman posted the bond and waived personal appearance for arraignment and preliminary hearing as authorized by Penal Code section 977(b).
- Bergman repeatedly failed to appear in person for six felony settlement conferences, though appearing through counsel on those dates; settlements were continued.
- The preliminary hearing was eventually held on February 20, 2008, after continuances; Bergman appeared in person at the hearing itself.
- Bergman pleaded guilty but did not appear for sentencing; the trial court declared the bond forfeited and issued a warrant for his arrest.
- The trial court denied the surety’s motion to set aside the forfeiture; the appeal challenges whether the court lost jurisdiction by not forfeiting on the first unexcused absence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court lose jurisdiction by not forfeiting on Bergman’s first unexcused absence? | Bergman’s absence first unexcused required forfeiture. | No forfeiture required because the case was not called for the preliminary hearing with unexcused absence; continuance issues apply. | No jurisdiction loss; forfeiture timing was properly discretionary under 1305. |
| Does a section 977 waiver affect presence at the preliminary hearing for forfeiture purposes? | Waiver cannot excuse required appearance for preliminary hearing. | Waiver, combined with § 1305, can excuse presence where not functionally required. | Bergman’s presence was not strictly required for the preliminary hearing; waiver applied. |
| Is Ranger controlling, requiring appearance on the calendared date for trial, regardless of continuances? | Ranger requires appearance on the trial date set, even if trial is postponed. | Ranger distinguished; here the hearing was for a continuance, not trial; presence not required. | Ranger distinguished; here appearance was not required for the continuance hearing. |
| Do minute orders stating Bergman must return on future dates imply mandatory personal presence at all hearings? | Such orders imply mandatory presence at each hearing. | Minutes show appearance through counsel and continuances; no strict personal presence requirement shown. | Record does not prove required personal presence; ambiguity resolved against surety. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 151 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal. App. Dep’t 2007) (strict construction of forfeiture to avoid automatic forfeiture)
- People v. Ranger Ins. Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998) (distinguishes when appearance is required for trial vs. calendar call)
- People v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 186 Cal.App.4th 959 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (burden on surety to show statutory compliance)
- People v. United Bonding Ins. Co., 5 Cal.3d 898 (Cal. 1971) (forfeiture statutes strictly construed to avoid forfeiture)
- Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 49 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2010) (strict construction of forfeiture rules in favor of surety)