53 Cal.App.5th 559
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- North River Insurance and Bad Boys Bail Bonds posted a $20,000 bail bond for Raheim Watts; Watts failed to appear and the court declared bail forfeited on May 26, 2016 (Judge Suzette Clover).
- Clerk mailed notice of forfeiture on June 3, 2016; the statutory exoneration/appearance period applied.
- The court (Judge Dorothy Kim) extended the appearance period to June 28, 2017; Watts again failed to appear and Judge Kim entered summary judgment on the forfeited bond on August 4, 2017.
- North River timely moved (Sept. 25, 2018) to set aside the summary judgment, arguing §1306 requires the same bench officer who declared forfeiture to enter the summary judgment (or else the judgment is void) and that due process bars a different judge from doing so.
- The superior court denied the motion; North River appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the statute refers to the judicial "court" (the superior court as an entity) not an individual judge, and no due process violation occurred.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1306's phrase "the court which has declared the forfeiture" requires the same individual judge to enter summary judgment | The People: statute contemplates the court as an entity; any judge of that court may enter the ministerial summary judgment | North River: "the" modifies court; requires the same bench officer who declared forfeiture to enter judgment; otherwise language is surplusage | The court held "court" means the judicial entity (superior court); the same individual judge is not required |
| Whether due process requires the judge who heard the forfeiture to enter summary judgment | The People: no due process violation because summary judgment after forfeiture is a statutory, largely ministerial/consent entry following notice and an opportunity to move | North River: due process violated because only the judge who heard forfeiture knows the facts and should decide entry | The court held no due process violation; entry is ministerial under §1306 and may be made by any judge of the court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, 5 Cal.5th 309 (2018) (authority on bail-forfeiture procedure and appealability)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (procedures and consequences for bail forfeiture and exoneration period)
- County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg National Ins. Co., 235 Cal.App.4th 944 (2015) (court must enter summary judgment after exoneration period expires)
- People v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co., 83 Cal.App.4th 1289 (2000) (judicial rendition of judgment cannot be performed by clerk)
- People v. Konow, 32 Cal.4th 995 (2004) (jurisdiction is vested in the court, not a particular judge)
- County of Los Angeles v. Amwest Ins. Co., 147 Cal.App.3d 961 (1983) (summary judgment after forfeiture is a consent/ministerial entry and satisfies due process)