People v. Lexington National Insurance
242 Cal. App. 4th 1098
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Edelmiro Cisneros was released on a $20,000 bail bond posted by Lexington National Insurance Corp. after arrest on domestic violence and related charges.
- At the October 13, 2011 preliminary hearing, the court held Cisneros to answer and, based on case evidence and prior history, ordered bail increased to $100,000 but allowed Cisneros to remain free pending posting of the higher amount.
- The trial court told Cisneros to post the total $100,000 by a set date and explained the court does not allow bonds to be "stacked."
- Cisneros failed to appear at the October 18, 2011 hearing; the court ordered the $20,000 bond forfeited and issued a $100,000 bench warrant.
- Lexington moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the $20,000 bond, arguing the bail increase voided the original bond and the court should have remanded Cisneros or exonerated the existing bond; the trial court denied the motion.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the increase to $100,000 without remanding Cisneros or securing a new bond rendered the $20,000 bond void and required exoneration and vacatur of the forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lexington) | Defendant/County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court-ordered increase in bail at a preliminary hearing, combined with allowing the defendant to remain on an existing lower bond, voids the original bond | The bail increase changed the contract terms; once bail was raised, the original bond could not satisfy the new order and therefore was void and must be exonerated | The $20,000 bond remained valid because Cisneros was not remanded and the court did not effectively exonerate the original bond | Held: The increase to $100,000 made it legally impossible for the $20,000 bond to satisfy the order; the original bond was void and must be exonerated and the forfeiture vacated |
| Whether the trial court was required to remand the defendant or otherwise secure new bail when increasing bail and the defendant was present | Lexington: When bail is increased and the defendant is present, the court must commit the defendant unless the new bail is posted; allowing continued release on the prior insufficient bond violates the bond contract | County: The court’s process was appropriate; no statutory exoneration occurred because the defendant was not remanded | Held: Court should have remanded or required new bail before permitting continued release; failure to do so voided the original bond |
| Applicability of contract principles to bonds when court unilaterally changes bail terms | Lexington: Bail bond is a contract; unilateral change that removes consideration (release from custody on prior terms) voids the new/changed contract | County: Distinguishes cases where bail not actually increased; argues original bond terms still governed | Held: Contract principles apply; change in bail that makes original bond insufficient voids that bond |
| Whether any contrary precedent (e.g., cases involving bail decreases or factual differences) controls | Lexington: Relies on cases finding bonds void when court orders incompatible bail changes without remand | County: Relies on Bankers and older cases where original bond remained effective when bail was not actually increased or bond terms covered broader charges | Held: Distinguishes Bankers and others; where bail is actually increased and defendant not remanded, original bond is void |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 204 Cal.App.4th 588 (appellate ruling that an original bond became legally impossible to satisfy after bail increase and that a subsequently posted bond was void for lack of valid consideration)
- People v. Bankers Ins. Co., 181 Cal.App.4th 1 (court upheld forfeiture where bail was not actually increased and bond terms covered additional charges)
- Kiperman v. Klenshetyn, 133 Cal.App.4th 934 (noting that once bail is raised above amount posted, court must remand if new bail not posted)
- People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co., 229 Cal.App.3d 351 (discussing bail bond as a contractual undertaking by a surety)
- McDermott v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.3d 693 (discussing bail-setting authority and implications of changed bail)
- People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co., 230 Cal.App.4th 548 (principle that bail statutes are strictly construed to avoid forfeiture)
- National Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App. 412 (older case addressing bond validity after bail decrease; distinguishable on facts)