People v. Surety Insurance

California Court of Appeal Feb 9, 1978 No. Civ. 50189Published

Before: Hastings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in denying the sureties' motion to vacate bail forfeiture, as the court was entitled to disbelieve the sureties' claims of reliance on alleged misrepresentations and conclude that the sureties had access to public records regarding the defendant's charges.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to vacate bail forfeiture based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Whether the trial court was bound to accept the uncontradicted declarations of bail agents regarding alleged misrepresentations by county officials.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Existence of an estoppel is generally a question of fact for the trial court whose determination is conclusive on appeal”

“The [trier of fact] is not bound to believe even the uncontradicted testimony of a particular witness”

“The court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to set aside bail forfeiture and exonerate bail.”

Opinion

HASTINGS, J.

On December 17, 1975, an information was filed against Gaiy L. Morgan (Morgan) in the Los Angeles Superior Court (No. A 439203) containing seven counts. Morgan was charged in five of these counts as follows: count 2—violation of Penal Code section 459, burglary; count 3—violation of Penal Code section 211, robbery with great bodily injury; count 5—violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), assault with a deadly weapon; count 6—violation of Penal Code section 245, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; count 7—violation of Penal Code section 288a, oral copulation. In the same case, a felony complaint was filed against Morgan in the Municipal Court of the San Antonio Judicial District, with the counts being basically the same. The main significance of the felony complaint filed in the municipal court is that bail was recommended by the district attorney for Morgan in the sum of $20,000.

On December 26, 1975, Morgan’s bail was set at $10,000, and Surety Insurance Company posted a $5,000 “undertaking of bail” and another $5,000 “undertaking of bail” was posted by Allied Fidelity Insurance Company on the same date. Each of these “undertakings of bail” were posted on a charge of “Felony 245 P.C.” Morgan, up until December 26, 1975, had been in custody since the filing of the charges against him.

On February 26, 1976, Morgan’s bail of $10,000 was ordered forfeited .. by the court for failure to appear. He never appeared thereafter, nor has he appeared at any subsequent proceedings in this case.

On September 3, 1976, each surety filed a notice of motion to vacate bail forfeiture and exonerate the bonds. The motion was heard and denied as to both sureties. This appeal followed.

[536]

In the declarations of the bail agents in support of the motion to vacate the bail forfeitures they stated that they were furnished false and erroneous information by the officials of Los Angeles County regarding the charges pending against Morgan. They stated that they were told by the appropriate officials that the only charge pending against Morgan on December 26, 1975, was a violation of Penal Code 245. They stated that if they had known the other charges pending against Morgan at that time, they would not have posted their respective “undertaking of bail.”

People v. Surety Insurance

AI Brief

HASTINGS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief