213 Cal. App. 4th 316
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Western, as the corporate surety on a $200,000 bail bond for Dizon, seeks exoneration after Dizon left the U.S. for the Philippines without Western's knowledge or consent.
- Dizon was charged with two counts of lewd acts on a child; bail posted by Western via its agent Two Jinn, Inc. (Aladdin Bail Bonds).
- The bond obligated Western to ensure Dizon's appearance and to surrender him if he defaulted; failure to appear triggers forfeiture and a 185-day appearance period for setting aside the forfeiture.
- Dizon received court permission to travel to the Philippines for his mother’s funeral in November 2010; Western was not notified of either the travel request or the order.
- Dizon failed to appear for trial on November 30, 2010; forfeiture was ordered; Western later moved to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond, arguing the travel order materially increased its risk.
- The trial court denied Western’s motion; final summary judgment favored the County of Los Angeles; Western timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court order allowing travel without notice materially increase Western's risk? | Western | People | Yes; order materially increased risk and excused exoneration. |
| Is exoneration under section 1305 exclusive or may other circumstances justify exoneration? | Western | People | Not exclusive; exoneration possible under other circumstances. |
| Does knowledge of Dizon’s birthplace/citizenship bind Western to risks in the Philippines? | Western | People | No; knowledge of birthplace does not defeat exoneration. |
| Does the clause that principal will be amenable to court orders authorize unnotified travel? | Western | People | No; clause does not authorize travel without notice and breaches implied covenant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. United States, 92 U.S. 21 (1876) (U.S.) (implied covenants; government must not increase surety's risk; breach when principal departs without consent)
- Galvez-Uriarte, 709 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1983) (government action that substantially encourages departure breaches implied covenant)
- Aguilar, 813 F.Supp. 727 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (travel outside jurisdiction increases risk without surety's knowledge)
- People v. Meyers, 215 Cal. 115 (Cal. 1932) (state delay/hindrance can exonerate surety under bail contract)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) (bail exoneration principles; statutory scheme not exclusive)