Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment, Discharge Forfeiture, and Exonerate Bail
People of the State of California v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment, Discharge Forfeiture, and Exonerate Bail
Hearing Date: May 1, 2026
The unopposed motion of Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (“Defendant”) for an order setting aside the entry of summary judgment on October 16, 2025, discharging the forfeiture entered on July 24, 2024, exonerating bail, and returning any funds paid is GRANTED.
Defendant, through its agent, posted bond number FCS10-2772303 (the “Bond”) to secure Justin Kelly’s release in criminal case number 24CR005025. [Defense Exh. A.] The Minute Order on July 24, 2024, states that the Bond was forfeited because Mr. Kelly did not appear in court for arraignment. [Defense Exh. B.] The following day, the clerk filed and mailed the Notice of Forfeiture. [Defense Exh. D.] On October 16, 2025, summary judgment was entered due to Defendant’s failure to move to set aside the forfeiture, and 180 days had elapsed since the forfeiture was finalized. [Defense Exh. E.]
In its set-aside motion, Defendant contends that the Court no longer had jurisdiction over the Bond because the judge at Mr. Kelly’s arraignment did not publicly forfeit the bond. This point is correct. While the Minute Order indicates that the Bond was forfeited [Defense Exh. B], the hearing transcript clearly shows that the judge “revoked,” not “forfeited,” the Bond.
[Defense Exh. C at 2:11-21 (highlight added).] Penal Code section 1305 requires a trial court to declare on the record, while the court is in session, that “bail is forfeited.” [People v. Nat. Auto. and Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 277, 283.] Simply declaring in open court that the bond was “revoked” does not equate to “forfeited.” [Id. at 285.] Additionally, stating that the bond was “forfeited” in the Minute Order is inadequate if the transcript indicates otherwise. [Id. at 283.]
Because the law abhors forfeitures, Penal Code sections 1305 through 1308 must be strictly construed. [People v. Harco Nat. Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 931, 934.] This strict interpretation in bond forfeiture cases is essential to safeguard the surety from losing their bond and protect individual citizens who risk their property to secure bonds. [
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING
This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.
2