48 Cal.App.5th 226
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In July 2015 the trial court set felony bail at $100,000 per the Los Angeles county bail schedule; Bad Boys Bail Bonds (The North River Insurance Co. surety) posted a $100,000 bond that day.
- The defendant failed to appear at the July 27, 2015 hearing; the court declared the bond forfeited and, after the appearance period expired, entered summary judgment against the surety on August 10, 2016.
- In January 2018 the First Appellate District decided In re Humphrey, requiring courts to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before setting bail; the California Supreme Court granted review of Humphrey in May 2018.
- In June 2018 the surety moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) to set aside the August 2016 summary judgment as void, arguing that the pre-Humphrey bail setting was unconstitutional and thus the bond (and summary judgment) was void.
- The trial court denied the motion for multiple reasons (untimeliness, Humphrey persuasive not binding, lack of standing, and that any Humphrey error would not void the bond); the surety appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the motion was untimely and the summary judgment was not void; at most any Humphrey noncompliance would be voidable, and here Humphrey did not apply because the defendant posted bail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 473(d) | Motion untimely: >6 months after judgment; judgment not void on its face so § 473(d) relief unavailable | Motion timely enough to attack a void judgment arising from unconstitutional bail | Motion untimely; judgment not void on its face because alleged defect requires extrinsic evidence (Humphrey/transcript) |
| Void vs. voidable (jurisdiction) | Court had fundamental jurisdiction over subject and parties; failure to follow Humphrey is at most excess of jurisdiction => voidable, not void | Humphrey noncompliance deprived court of power to detain, making bond/judgment void for lack of jurisdiction | Summary judgment not void; court retained subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; Humphrey error (if any) would be voidable |
| Applicability of Humphrey to this case | Humphrey was persuasive but not retroactively controlling; bail complied with law at time set | Humphrey should invalidate preexisting bail settings that failed to consider ability to pay, making related bonds void | Humphrey was persuasive only; bail complied with pre-Humphrey law and thus not invalidated here |
| Whether Humphrey was violated (ability to pay / detention) | Defendant was never detained (he posted bond), so Humphrey’s detention concern is inapplicable | Surety argues invalid bail impaired its power to re-arrest and thus undermines bond liability | No Humphrey violation: defendant posted bond (showing ability to pay); Humphrey issues concern defendants detained because they cannot afford bail |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Humphrey, 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (2018) (courts must consider defendant’s ability to pay before setting bail)
- People v. American Contractors Indem. Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (distinguishes void from voidable judgments; court retains jurisdiction when statutory procedures followed)
- Abelleira v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (1941) (jurisdictional standards and void-voidable distinction)
- In re Marriage of Goddard, 33 Cal.4th 49 (2004) (clarifies difference between lack of fundamental jurisdiction and acting in excess of jurisdiction)
- People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., 125 Cal.App.4th 1 (2004) (trial-court bail-setting errors do not exonerate surety’s liability)
- People v. Financial Cas. & Surety, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 35 (2016) (bail bond proceedings are collateral to criminal prosecution; surety obligations survive certain criminal-procedure errors)
- People v. Financial Cas. & Surety, Inc., 39 Cal.App.5th 1213 (2019) (unconstitutional bail condition did not void surety’s bond)
- In re Webb, 7 Cal.5th 270 (2019) (Humphrey concerns not presented where defendant posted bail)
- People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 204 Cal.App.4th 588 (2012) (voiding summary judgment where consideration for the bond was invalid)